Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/24/2018 7:02 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 7/24/2018 7:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 10:44 PM Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



On 7/23/2018 8:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> Other mathematics might work, but this seems to be the
absolute
> simplest and with the least assumptions.  It comes from pure
> mathematical truth concerning integers.  You don't need set
theory, or
> reals, or machines with infinite tapes. You just need a single
> equation, which needs math no more advanced than whats
taught in
> elementary school. I can't imagine a TOE that could assume
less.

It might be interesting except that it executes all possible
algorithms.  Another instance of proving too much.

Now if you would find the diophantine equations that compute
this world
and only this world that would be something.


Well for you to have a valid doubt regarding the everything
predicted to exist by all computations, you would need to show
why you expect each individual being within that everything
should also be able to see everything.


So if I tell you everything described in every novel ever written
really happened, but on a different planets (many also called
"Earth")  you couldn't doubt that unless you could show that you
should have been able to see all those novels play out.


If a theory predicts that everything exists, and also explains why you 
shouldn't expect to see everything even though everything exists, then 
you can't use your inability to see everything that exists as a 
criticism of the theory.


However, I can use the incoherence of "everything exists" to reject it.

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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 7:47 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Yielding
>
> (Here comes the awful question)
>
> The knowledge of our Diophantine-connected existence, does what for us?
> Implications??
>
>
Provides a TOE that assumes no more than Integers and their relations.

Possibly permits the derivation of all physical laws purely from number
theory.

Jason


>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Resch 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Mon, Jul 23, 2018 11:40 pm
> Subject: Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?
>
> Other mathematics might work, but this seems to be the absolute simplest
> and with the least assumptions.  It comes from pure mathematical truth
> concerning integers.  You don't need set theory, or reals, or machines with
> infinite tapes. You just need a single equation, which needs math no more
> advanced than whats taught in elementary school. I can't imagine a TOE that
> could assume less.
>
> Jason
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 9:15 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> Very well, but, why this class of equation? Why not some ther branch of
> mathematics? Facetiously, what not a toaster-oven, or a Hafnium, or
> Chloride atom? What is innate about Diophantine, that yields such awe? Does
> it propagate exponentially? Does it yield new information?
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Resch 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Mon, Jul 23, 2018 7:19 pm
> Subject: Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?
>
> There is a diophantine equation whose solutions correspond to every
> possible execution of every halting program.  Just as a simple equation
> defines/creates all the richness of the Mandlebrot set, this simple
> equation defines/creates all the richness of computable first-person
> experience.  So in a certain sense you could say we live within such an
> equation.
>
> Jason
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 2:09 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> navigation 
> Jump to search
> 
> 
> 
> Finding all right triangles with integer side-lengths
>  is equivalent to
> solving the Diophantine equation *a*2 + *b*2 = *c*2.
> In mathematics , a *Diophantine
> equation* is a polynomial equation
> , usually in two or
> more unknowns , such that only
> the integer  solutions
> are
> sought or studied (an integer solution is a solution such that all the
> unknowns take integer values). A *linear Diophantine equation*equates the
> sum of two or more monomials ,
> each of degree  1
> in one of the variables, to a constant. An *exponential Diophantine
> equation* is one in which exponents on terms can be unknowns.
>
> ***I'd guess no-based on the above description***
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Mon, Jul 23, 2018 7:24 am
> Subject: Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?
>
>
> On 21 Jul 2018, at 18:02, John Clark  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
> >> If "Abbey" is the being before the teleportation then obviously by
> definition "Abbey" will not exist after the teleportation. Are you sure you
> really want to go with that definition?
>
>
> *> Okay we can go with your definition as anyone who remembers being Abby,
> what is important is that our language and definitions are consistent.*
> Yes, some definitions are more useful than others but the most important
> thing is that they be used consistently
>
>
>
>
>
> *> So we have: "Earth Abby" - The Abby at time 0 on Earth "Abby-1" - The
> Abby who ends up at her intended destination on Mars, at time 1 "Abby-2" -
> The Abby who ends up at her admirer's destination on Mars, at time 1 "Abby"
> - Anyone who remembers being Earth Abby (includes Earth Abby, Abby-1,
> Abby-2)*
>
>
> After duplication it would be misleading to call anything "THE Abby".
> Abby-1 is just Abby plus something extra, lets call it M.  And Abby-2 is
> just Abby plus something extra that is different, lets call it W.  Both are
> Abby but Abby-1 is not Abby-2.
>
>
> Yes, we agree on this since day one. But to answer to the step-3 question,
> we must keep in mind that it refers to the first person self lived by,
> obviously with computationalism, both copies.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> I define "Abby" as anyone who remembers being Abbey before the
> 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 7/24/2018 7:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 10:44 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 7/23/2018 8:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> > Other mathematics might work, but this seems to be the absolute
>> > simplest and with the least assumptions.  It comes from pure
>> > mathematical truth concerning integers.  You don't need set theory, or
>> > reals, or machines with infinite tapes. You just need a single
>> > equation, which needs math no more advanced than whats taught in
>> > elementary school. I can't imagine a TOE that could assume less.
>>
>> It might be interesting except that it executes all possible
>> algorithms.  Another instance of proving too much.
>>
>> Now if you would find the diophantine equations that compute this world
>> and only this world that would be something.
>>
>
> Well for you to have a valid doubt regarding the everything predicted to
> exist by all computations, you would need to show why you expect each
> individual being within that everything should also be able to see
> everything.
>
>
> So if I tell you everything described in every novel ever written really
> happened, but on a different planets (many also called "Earth")  you
> couldn't doubt that unless you could show that you should have been able to
> see all those novels play out.
>

If a theory predicts that everything exists, and also explains why you
shouldn't expect to see everything even though everything exists, then you
can't use your inability to see everything that exists as a criticism of
the theory.

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?

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

So its just a means of propagating IF statements!



-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Jul 24, 2018 9:06 am
Subject: Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?





On 23 Jul 2018, at 21:09, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:



navigation

Jump to search




Finding all right triangles with integer side-lengths is equivalent to solving 
the Diophantine equation a2 + b2 = c2.

In mathematics, a Diophantine equation is a polynomial equation, usually in two 
or more unknowns, such that only the integer solutionsare sought or studied (an 
integer solution is a solution such that all the unknowns take integer values). 
A linear Diophantine equationequates the sum of two or more monomials, each of 
degree 1 in one of the variables, to a constant. An exponential Diophantine 
equation is one in which exponents on terms can be unknowns.


**I'd guess no-based on the above description**






Why? I use “diophantine equation” in that precise sense. I have often given an 
example of universal (in the Turing sense of course) diophantine equation, or 
of a universal system of Diophantine equation . 
I can put it again, of course it is not obvious that it is Turing universal. 
That comes from the work of Matiyasevic, and also Jones:






(unknowns range on the non negative integers (= 0 included)
31 unknowns: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, W, Z, 
U, Y, Al, Ga, Et, Th, La, Ta, Ph, and two parameters:  Nu and X.


X is in W_Nu iff   phi_Nu(X) stop if and only if




BEGIN:


Nu = ((ZUY)^2 + U)^2 + Y 


ELG^2 + Al = (B - XY)Q^2


Qu = B^(5^60)


La + Qu^4 = 1 + LaB^5


Th +  2Z = B^5


L = U + TTh


E = Y + MTh


N = Q^16


R = [G + EQ^3 + LQ^5 + (2(E - ZLa)(1 + XB^5 + G)^4 + LaB^5 + + 
LaB^5Q^4)Q^4](N^2 -N)
 + [Q^3 -BL + L + ThLaQ^3 + (B^5 - 2)Q^5] (N^2 - 1)


P = 2W(S^2)(R^2)N^2


(P^2)K^2 - K^2 + 1 = Ta^2


4(c - KSN^2)^2 + Et = K^2


K = R + 1 + HP - H


A = (WN^2 + 1)RSN^2


C = 2R + 1 Ph


D = BW + CA -2C + 4AGa -5Ga


D^2 = (A^2 - 1)C^2 + 1


F^2 = (A^2 - 1)(I^2)C^4 + 1


(D + OF)^2 = ((A + F^2(D^2 - A^2))^2 - 1)(2R + 1 + JC)^2 + 1


END












-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Jul 23, 2018 7:24 am
Subject: Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?





On 21 Jul 2018, at 18:02, John Clark  wrote:



On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Jason Resch  wrote:


>> If "Abbey" is the being before the teleportation then obviously by 
>> definition "Abbey" will not exist after the teleportation. Are you sure you 
>> really want to go with that definition?  

> Okay we can go with your definition as anyone who remembers being Abby, what 
> is important is that our language and definitions are consistent.
Yes, some definitions are more useful than others but the most important thing 
is that they be used consistently  
> So we have:
"Earth Abby" - The Abby at time 0 on Earth
"Abby-1" - The Abby who ends up at her intended destination on Mars, at time 1
"Abby-2" - The Abby who ends up at her admirer's destination on Mars, at time 1
"Abby" - Anyone who remembers being Earth Abby (includes Earth Abby, Abby-1, 
Abby-2)
 
After duplication it would be misleading to call anything "THE Abby". Abby-1 is 
just Abby plus something extra, lets call it M.  And Abby-2 is just Abby plus 
something extra that is different, lets call it W.  Both are Abby but Abby-1 is 
not Abby-2.



Yes, we agree on this since day one. But to answer to the step-3 question, we 
must keep in mind that it refers to the first person self lived by, obviously 
with computationalism, both copies. 











>> I define "Abby" as anyone who remembers being Abbey before the duplication. 
>> Do you disagree?
 

> No, we can go with that.




Indeed.










 
OK, and since 2 people meet the definition of "Abbey" then there is simply no 
getting around the fact that "Abbey" will see 2 entirely different things at 
exactly the same time. 






That is the 3-1 description, but that does not answer the question about the 
1-description, as lived by any copies, which obviously cannot have a first 
person perception of the two cities at once FROM that first person perspective. 











Whenever I say something like that Bruno says but that contradicts blah blah, 
but if true then the only alternative is to change the definition of "Abbey" or 
change the blah blah. And then of course Bruno would accuse me of playing with 
words as he does whenever I try to be precise, as if precise thinking is not 
necessary in a matter of this sort.





My answer has always been the same: you dismiss the difference between the 1p 
self (both of which obviously cannot feel to be in two places at once from 
their local current perspective after the duplication) and the 3p perspective.


Your answer is alway like “the hell with the pee-pee” or “the hell with the 
diary”, etc.


Just do the thought experience, 

Proof; Eigenfunctions having different eigenvalues are orthogonal

[agrayson2000]

 http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/qmech/Quantum/node40.html

-- 
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?

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/24/2018 7:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 10:44 PM Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 7/23/2018 8:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> Other mathematics might work, but this seems to be the absolute
> simplest and with the least assumptions.  It comes from pure
> mathematical truth concerning integers.  You don't need set
theory, or
> reals, or machines with infinite tapes. You just need a single
> equation, which needs math no more advanced than whats taught in
> elementary school. I can't imagine a TOE that could assume less.

It might be interesting except that it executes all possible
algorithms.  Another instance of proving too much.

Now if you would find the diophantine equations that compute this
world
and only this world that would be something.


Well for you to have a valid doubt regarding the everything predicted 
to exist by all computations, you would need to show why you expect 
each individual being within that everything should also be able to 
see everything.


So if I tell you everything described in every novel ever written really 
happened, but on a different planets (many also called "Earth")  you 
couldn't doubt that unless you could show that you should have been able 
to see all those novels play out.


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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Yielding


(Here comes the awful question)


The knowledge of our Diophantine-connected existence, does what for us? 
Implications??



-Original Message-
From: Jason Resch 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Mon, Jul 23, 2018 11:40 pm
Subject: Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?



Other mathematics might work, but this seems to be the absolute simplest and 
with the least assumptions.  It comes from pure mathematical truth concerning 
integers.  You don't need set theory, or reals, or machines with infinite 
tapes. You just need a single equation, which needs math no more advanced than 
whats taught in elementary school. I can't imagine a TOE that could assume less.


Jason



On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 9:15 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

Very well, but, why this class of equation? Why not some ther branch of 
mathematics? Facetiously, what not a toaster-oven, or a Hafnium, or Chloride 
atom? What is innate about Diophantine, that yields such awe? Does it propagate 
exponentially? Does it yield new information? 




-Original Message-
From: Jason Resch 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Mon, Jul 23, 2018 7:19 pm
Subject: Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?



There is a diophantine equation whose solutions correspond to every possible 
execution of every halting program.  Just as a simple equation defines/creates 
all the richness of the Mandlebrot set, this simple equation defines/creates 
all the richness of computable first-person experience.  So in a certain sense 
you could say we live within such an equation.


Jason  



On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 2:09 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

navigation

Jump to search



Finding all right triangles with integer side-lengths is equivalent to solving 
the Diophantine equation a2 + b2 = c2.

In mathematics, a Diophantine equation is a polynomial equation, usually in two 
or more unknowns, such that only the integer solutionsare sought or studied (an 
integer solution is a solution such that all the unknowns take integer values). 
A linear Diophantine equationequates the sum of two or more monomials, each of 
degree 1 in one of the variables, to a constant. An exponential Diophantine 
equation is one in which exponents on terms can be unknowns.


**I'd guess no-based on the above description**





-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Jul 23, 2018 7:24 am
Subject: Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?





On 21 Jul 2018, at 18:02, John Clark  wrote:



On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Jason Resch  wrote:


>> If "Abbey" is the being before the teleportation then obviously by 
>> definition "Abbey" will not exist after the teleportation. Are you sure you 
>> really want to go with that definition?  

> Okay we can go with your definition as anyone who remembers being Abby, what 
> is important is that our language and definitions are consistent.
Yes, some definitions are more useful than others but the most important thing 
is that they be used consistently  
> So we have:
"Earth Abby" - The Abby at time 0 on Earth
"Abby-1" - The Abby who ends up at her intended destination on Mars, at time 1
"Abby-2" - The Abby who ends up at her admirer's destination on Mars, at time 1
"Abby" - Anyone who remembers being Earth Abby (includes Earth Abby, Abby-1, 
Abby-2)
 
After duplication it would be misleading to call anything "THE Abby". Abby-1 is 
just Abby plus something extra, lets call it M.  And Abby-2 is just Abby plus 
something extra that is different, lets call it W.  Both are Abby but Abby-1 is 
not Abby-2.



Yes, we agree on this since day one. But to answer to the step-3 question, we 
must keep in mind that it refers to the first person self lived by, obviously 
with computationalism, both copies. 











>> I define "Abby" as anyone who remembers being Abbey before the duplication. 
>> Do you disagree?
 

> No, we can go with that.




Indeed.










 
OK, and since 2 people meet the definition of "Abbey" then there is simply no 
getting around the fact that "Abbey" will see 2 entirely different things at 
exactly the same time. 






That is the 3-1 description, but that does not answer the question about the 
1-description, as lived by any copies, which obviously cannot have a first 
person perception of the two cities at once FROM that first person perspective. 











Whenever I say something like that Bruno says but that contradicts blah blah, 
but if true then the only alternative is to change the definition of "Abbey" or 
change the blah blah. And then of course Bruno would accuse me of playing with 
words as he does whenever I try to be precise, as if precise thinking is not 
necessary in a matter of this sort.





My answer has always been the same: you dismiss the difference between the 1p 
self (both of which obviously cannot feel to be in two places at once from 
their local current perspective after the duplication) and the 3p perspective.

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 6:37:19 PM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 à 20:30, > a 
> écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:58:43 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 09:19, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 4:27:03 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 20 Jul 2018, at 23:12, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 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:
>
> 
>
>
> *Nevertheless, I still stand with Schroedinger that in any quantum 
> superposition, other than for slit experiments, the system cannot be in 
> all 
> eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.*
>
>
> Then you can no more explain the working of an interferometer, or 
> polariser, or even the structure of the hydrogen atoms, molecules, etc. 
> You 
> are just saying that QM works for the double slit, but not for anything 
> else. That is contrary to the fact that QM has just never been shown 
> wrong, 
> at any scale and level.
>



 *Sorry, but I see you have no clue what I have been claiming in this 
 thread. Although I infer that English isn't your native language, you know 
 it well enough to understand my claim; yet you do NOT. How can you expect 
 to posit new theories about reality, such as based on arithmetic, if you 
 are unable to understand simple English?  OK, let me start again. I am NOT 
 questioning the CALCULATED results of QM.*



 That is ambiguous. Is it SWE + COLLAPSE, or just SWE (+ Mechanism) ?

>>>
>>>
>>> *That you ask this question, shows you still have no clue what I am 
>>> arguing about. Thanks for your time. AG *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What are you arguing about? I’m afraid you are unclear in many of your 
>>> replies, including to others. But you seem to believe that there is no 
>>> superposition, 
>>>
>>
>> *I never claimed that, never. You have no clue what I am arguing. NONE! 
>> AG*
>>
>
> Could you use a bigger font and a redder color? Because it's too small for 
> us to read... Also please stop taking time to explain yourself it is as we 
> all know useless, instead I propose for you to directly insult people in 
> blinking red 66pt sized font... It will be at last interesting. 
>
> Thank you. 
>

*How many times do I have to state that I was objecting NOT to 
superposition per se, but to its INTERPRETATION until Bruno understands? We 
use superpositions to calculate probabilities, which obviously works, but 
why do the Masters of the Universe assume a system in a superposition of 
eigenstates (which, btw, are orthogonal, so no mutual interference, and 
form a basis) is SIMULTANEOUSLY in all component states when the base is 
NOT unique? I don't see that claim or hypothesis used in solving standard 
quantum problems, such as the H-atom, tunneling, etc., so it seems 
SUPERFLUOUS and leads to problems such as a cat which is alive and dead 
simultaneously. AG* 

>
>>  
>>
>>> makes me doubt you have study QM, 
>>>
>>
>> which is all about superposition. I do miss something, you might perhaps 
>>> try to clarify. 
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
 Personally by QM I mean the SWE or its Dirac Version, or 
 DeWitt-Wheeler, etc. Once I understood that Bohr’s perturbation act needs 
 FTL influence, I have ceased to judge the collapse plausible.



>>> -- 
>>> 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-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

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le mar. 24 juil. 2018 à 20:30,  a écrit :

>
>
> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:58:43 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 24 Jul 2018, at 09:19, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 4:27:03 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20 Jul 2018, at 23:12, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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:

 


 *Nevertheless, I still stand with Schroedinger that in any quantum
 superposition, other than for slit experiments, the system cannot be in all
 eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.*


 Then you can no more explain the working of an interferometer, or
 polariser, or even the structure of the hydrogen atoms, molecules, etc. You
 are just saying that QM works for the double slit, but not for anything
 else. That is contrary to the fact that QM has just never been shown wrong,
 at any scale and level.

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Sorry, but I see you have no clue what I have been claiming in this
>>> thread. Although I infer that English isn't your native language, you know
>>> it well enough to understand my claim; yet you do NOT. How can you expect
>>> to posit new theories about reality, such as based on arithmetic, if you
>>> are unable to understand simple English?  OK, let me start again. I am NOT
>>> questioning the CALCULATED results of QM.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That is ambiguous. Is it SWE + COLLAPSE, or just SWE (+ Mechanism) ?
>>>
>>
>>
>> *That you ask this question, shows you still have no clue what I am
>> arguing about. Thanks for your time. AG *
>>
>>
>>
>> What are you arguing about? I’m afraid you are unclear in many of your
>> replies, including to others. But you seem to believe that there is no
>> superposition,
>>
>
> *I never claimed that, never. You have no clue what I am arguing. NONE! AG*
>

Could you use a bigger font and a redder color? Because it's too small for
us to read... Also please stop taking time to explain yourself it is as we
all know useless, instead I propose for you to directly insult people in
blinking red 66pt sized font... It will be at last interesting.

Thank you.

>
>
>
>> makes me doubt you have study QM,
>>
>
> which is all about superposition. I do miss something, you might perhaps
>> try to clarify.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>> Personally by QM I mean the SWE or its Dirac Version, or DeWitt-Wheeler,
>>> etc. Once I understood that Bohr’s perturbation act needs FTL influence, I
>>> have ceased to judge the collapse plausible.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> 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.

Re: Bruno's UDA and Solomonoff's theory of induction

[auxon]

Some people lurk in the Shadows.. 


On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 6:50:52 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 12:36:19AM +0200, smitra wrote: 
> > On 30-06-2018 21:27, Jason Resch wrote: 
> > > It looks like Bruno's idea of extracting physics from all computations 
> > > is catching on. I came across this article: 
> > > 
> > > 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_inductive_inference 
> > > [1] 
> > > 
> > > And this idea (from the 1960s) is being used in recent papers, such as 
> > > this one: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01826.pdf [2] 
>
>
> This is the bigger, more detailed, companion paper to the one I 
> mentioned a week or two ago. 
>
> > > 
> > > > Thus, in this paper, I propose an alternative approach which starts 
> > > > with a (rigorously formalized) concept of “observation” as its 
> > > > primary notion, and does not from the outset assume the existence of 
> > > > a “world” or physical laws. It can be subsumed under a single 
> > > > postulate: namely, that Solomonoff induction correctly predicts 
> > > > future observations. Using tools from algorithmic information 
> > > > theory, I show that the resulting theory suggests a possible 
> > > > explanation for why there are (simple computable probabilistic) 
> > > > “laws of nature” in the first place. 
> > > 
> > > Jason 
> > 
> > Interesting! I think Markus Mueller made a brief appearance on this list 
> a 
> > long time ago. 
> > 
>
> I don't remember him ever being involved in this list. In fact, when I 
> reached out to him about 6 months ago, he complained of being very 
> alone. I don't think he had heard of this list. 
>
> Maybe you were thinking of either Juergen Schmidhuber, or Marcus 
> Hutter, who were briefly involved on this list in the early days, and 
> both fellow Swiss (although Marcus now lives in Australia). 
>
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpc...@hpcoders.com.au 
>  
> Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
>  
>
>

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 12:58:43 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 24 Jul 2018, at 09:19, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 4:27:03 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20 Jul 2018, at 23:12, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> *Nevertheless, I still stand with Schroedinger that in any quantum 
>>> superposition, other than for slit experiments, the system cannot be in all 
>>> eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.*
>>>
>>>
>>> Then you can no more explain the working of an interferometer, or 
>>> polariser, or even the structure of the hydrogen atoms, molecules, etc. You 
>>> are just saying that QM works for the double slit, but not for anything 
>>> else. That is contrary to the fact that QM has just never been shown wrong, 
>>> at any scale and level.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Sorry, but I see you have no clue what I have been claiming in this 
>> thread. Although I infer that English isn't your native language, you know 
>> it well enough to understand my claim; yet you do NOT. How can you expect 
>> to posit new theories about reality, such as based on arithmetic, if you 
>> are unable to understand simple English?  OK, let me start again. I am NOT 
>> questioning the CALCULATED results of QM.*
>>
>>
>>
>> That is ambiguous. Is it SWE + COLLAPSE, or just SWE (+ Mechanism) ?
>>
>
>
> *That you ask this question, shows you still have no clue what I am 
> arguing about. Thanks for your time. AG *
>
>
>
> What are you arguing about? I’m afraid you are unclear in many of your 
> replies, including to others. But you seem to believe that there is no 
> superposition, 
>

*I never claimed that, never. You have no clue what I am arguing. NONE! AG*
 

> makes me doubt you have study QM, 
>

which is all about superposition. I do miss something, you might perhaps 
> try to clarify. 
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>> Personally by QM I mean the SWE or its Dirac Version, or DeWitt-Wheeler, 
>> etc. Once I understood that Bohr’s perturbation act needs FTL influence, I 
>> have ceased to judge the collapse plausible.
>>
>>
>>
> -- 
> 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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Jason Resch]

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018, 10:44 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 7/23/2018 8:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> > Other mathematics might work, but this seems to be the absolute
> > simplest and with the least assumptions.  It comes from pure
> > mathematical truth concerning integers.  You don't need set theory, or
> > reals, or machines with infinite tapes. You just need a single
> > equation, which needs math no more advanced than whats taught in
> > elementary school. I can't imagine a TOE that could assume less.
>
> It might be interesting except that it executes all possible
> algorithms.  Another instance of proving too much.
>
> Now if you would find the diophantine equations that compute this world
> and only this world that would be something.
>

Well for you to have a valid doubt regarding the everything predicted to
exist by all computations, you would need to show why you expect each
individual being within that everything should also be able to see
everything.

Jason




> 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.
>

-- 
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 23 Jul 2018, at 16:34, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> 
> >> After duplication it would be misleading to call anything "THE Abby". 
> >> Abby-1 is just Abby plus something extra, lets call it M.  And Abby-2 is 
> >> just Abby plus something extra that is different, lets call it W.  Both 
> >> are Abby but Abby-1 is not Abby-2.
>  
> > Yes, we agree on this since day one.
> 
> ​At one time I thought so too but on day one for some strange reason you 
> started babbling about telepathy somehow​ ​being involved and you still talk 
> abut it, I had absolutely why you did that 5 years ​and I have no better idea 
> why you still do it now.  You ofter say you agree on a certain point but very 
> soon it becomes clear you don't agree at all.
> 
> 
> ​>​But to answer to the step-3 question
> 
> ​The only step-3 question John Clark wants answered is who the hell is Mr. 
> You?​ 
> 
> 


In step-3, you can take any one. It is some person or robot, in Helsinki day 
one. And in W and M day two, as described in any third person diary. 

But of course, if I may say, the first person diaries *will* differ, as one 
will contain (M & ~W) and the other (W & ~M).  



>  
> 
> 
> 
>  
>  
> ​>​we must keep in mind that it refers to the first person
> 
> In a world that contains first person duplicating machines there is no such 
> thing as THE first person.


That would contradict computationalism immediately, because it would mean that 
the first person in M has disappeared or is a zombie, and the same for the 
first person in W.

You seem to remain unable to put yourself in any possible continuation. You 
seem to deny that in W, the guy feel to be only in W, and is aware he could not 
have predicted that outcome, given that would contradict its fellow in M, and 
he believes both are genuine survivors by computationalism.




> 
> ​>>​I define "Abby" as anyone who remembers being Abbey before the 
> duplication. Do you disagree?
>  
> ​>>​No, we can go with that.
>  
> 
> ​>​Indeed.
> 
> ​This is a very good example of what I was talking about, you say you agree 
> with the above definition of "Abbey" but I would bet money you really don’t.


Betting is not an argument. Show me any quote where I would not have agreed 
with your definition of Abbey. Oh, I might guess, but that is only because you 
forget to distinguish between the first person account (I am in Helsinki, I use 
the button, I find myself in one city (among W and M).



>  
> 
> >> OK, and since 2 people meet the definition of "Abbey" then there is simply 
> >> no getting around the fact that "Abbey" will see 2 entirely different 
> >> things at exactly the same time.
> 
> ​>​That is the 3-1 description
> 
> ​Wow, that didn't take long! Despite the "indeed" above you are NOT using my 
> definition of "Abbey”.

I use it to describe the protocol, but the question is about the first person 
experience, that you seem to deny now, despite you did understood all this many 
times, but then you say that it is hardly original, instead of moving to step 4.



> I can give a precise logically consistent definition of "Abbey", why can't 
> you?


I can, but we have to distinguish the 1p and the 3p. Abbey is indeed surviving 
in both W and M, but only in one city, from both copies perspectives.


>  
> ​>​ but that does not answer the question about the 1-description,
> 
> ​The "question" was full of proper names with no definitions and personal 
> pronouns with no referent. In short there was no answer because there was no 
> question.  


Not at all. We have agreed on all name and pronoun this time. You make this up.



>  
> ​> ​as lived by any copies, which obviously cannot have a first person 
> perception of the two cities at once FROM that first person perspective.
> 
> That depends entirely on who the person in the first person perspective you 
> keep talking about is!


All of them, of course, as we agree that in the 3-1p view, Abbey is in both 
city. So to get the statistic on the first person view accessible, we interview 
them both.



> I can give a precise logically consistent definition of "Abbey" and I don't 
> have any need to change it on a daily bases, can you do the same thing?


I use the same definition since the beginning, and I use the second recursion 
theorem o formalise this in arithmetic. All proposition I asset are theorem in 
first order or second order arithmetic. 



> If you can't then you quite literally don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> ​>​you dismiss the difference between the 1p self (both of which obviously 
> cannot feel to be in two places at once from their local current perspective 
> after the duplication) and the 3p perspective.
> 
> I'll make you a deal, give me a precise unambiguous definition of the "p" 
> that you're using in the phrases "1p" and "3p" and I'll tell you if I really 
> dismiss the difference between the two or 

Re: Bootstrapping Reality: The inconsistency of nothing

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 23 Jul 2018, at 13:46, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> This is one reason I am not a big upholder of any particular quantum 
> interpretation. They all seem to lead to some intellectual cul de sac. The 
> MWI does seem to imply a kind of coordinate dependency, a dependency tied to 
> Hilbert space, that is outside of physical theory in a proper sense. Other 
> interpretations have their problems as well.

Everett makes clear that there is no base problem, and that the relative sates 
are independent of any choice of coordinate. 

The mind-body problem re-introduce special coordinate, but that is like going 
to the moon. In practice, brains and rockets needs some base, and there are 
some explanations, given by Zurek, why the position base has to play a more 
important role for (universal) machine to develop. But that choice play no role 
for the physical reality, only for the biological and psychological reality.

Everett theory is actually not an interpretation. It is the Copenhagen theory 
minus the projection postulate. Everett theory is just the (common) assumption 
that physicist obeys to the laws of physics. In this case, it means that they 
obey to quantum mechanics. Then, like Galilee did explain why we don’t feel 
like the Earth is moving, he explains in great details why we can’t see or feel 
macroscopic superposition, nor fell consciousness differentiating. 
"Many-histories” might seems strange, but not as nonsensical than FTL or 
physical 3p indeterminacy, Imo.

Bruno



> 
> LC
> 
> On Saturday, July 21, 2018 at 6:52:37 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 05:42:48AM -0700, Lawrence Crowell wrote: 
> > 
> > The world splitting "at once" runs into some funny issues with relativity. 
> > Does the world split at one by observer A's frame or B's frame? For that 
> > matter, it is hard to know how to assign the split in the local frame of an 
> > observer. I think in some ways this has a relationship to the illusion of 
> > there being a "now" or present moment in time. In fact it may in general 
> > point to the whole illusion of consciousness itself. QM may in fact unravel 
> > much of philosophy not only in our ideas of ontology and epistemology, but 
> > with Descarte's assertion of existential certainty with "I think, therefore 
> > I am." 
> 
> I would think each observer splits the worlds in er own reference 
> frame. Quite solipsistic, in a way, in the sense of there only being 
> one real observer per world. This pushes the problem into how the 
> disparate worlds come to interact - ie how does observer A compare 
> notes with observer B. We can note that from observer A's perspective, 
> observer B is a physical process (a human being, a brain, or even just 
> some words displayed on a computer screen), and thus compatible with 
> all other physical processes in A's world. Likewise for observer 
> B. For space-like separated observers, from A's perspective, the 
> physical process that is B is receipt of communication, more likely 
> the words displayed on the computer screen in the examples above. This 
> occurs at subluminal speed. The worlds splitting will be instantaneous 
> in observer A's reference frame (ditto a completely independent split 
> in observer B's reference frame). 
> 
> This does contrast with the point of view that MWI branching is more 
> of a physical process that proceeds at subluminal speeds a la David 
> Deutsch. But is there a problem with that picture? 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
>  
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpc...@hpcoders.com.au  
> Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
>  
>  
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 24 Jul 2018, at 05:44, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/23/2018 8:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> Other mathematics might work, but this seems to be the absolute simplest and 
>> with the least assumptions.  It comes from pure mathematical truth 
>> concerning integers.  You don't need set theory, or reals, or machines with 
>> infinite tapes. You just need a single equation, which needs math no more 
>> advanced than whats taught in elementary school. I can't imagine a TOE that 
>> could assume less.
> 
> It might be interesting except that it executes all possible algorithms.  
> Another instance of proving too much.

It proves only the sigma_1 (true) sentences. Computation is, in term of 
proving, the restriction of proofs on the sigma_1 sentence. 




> 
> Now if you would find the diophantine equations that compute this world and 
> only this world that would be something.

No, that would not solve the mind body problem, you need to justify how that 
computations, if it exists, get selected by your consciousness, and this leads 
to the fact that not only all computations done at finer grain of precision 
(i.e. below the substitution level) must be taken into account, and the 
physical laws, maybe the universal wave must be derive from that the purely 
arithmetical reality (or combinatorial, or lisp-able, etc.). 
Once you have a universal machine, be it a universal diophantine polynomial, or 
a universal combinators, or a universal game-of-life pattern, or a universal 
Turing machine (set of quadruplets) you can implement the solutions, or one, of 
DeWitt-Wheeler equation, but that is cheating: you need to justify the whole 
physical formalism before, and this only from the self-reference theory. That 
has worked until now, as we recover quantum logics exactly where we need them. 
The physicalist theory cannot work because it blurs G and G*, confuse quanta 
and qualia, use an obsolete mind-brain identity link, and is often based on 
hypothesis having no empirical basis, like the existence of some primitive 
matter. Now we can test it, and the evidences obtained suggest that the 
empirical reality has no primitive matter. Such metaphysical matter will 
disappear like the phlogiston. Nobody can provides evidence, and it makes the 
mind-body problem unsolvable.

Bruno




> 
> 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.

-- 
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 23 Jul 2018, at 21:09, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> navigation 
> Jump to search  
>  
>  Finding all right 
> triangles with integer side-lengths 
>  is equivalent to solving 
> the Diophantine equation a2 + b2 = c2.
> In mathematics , a Diophantine 
> equation is a polynomial equation 
> , usually in two or more 
> unknowns , such that only the integer 
>  solutions 
> are sought 
> or studied (an integer solution is a solution such that all the unknowns take 
> integer values). A linear Diophantine equationequates the sum of two or more 
> monomials , each of degree 
>  1 in one of the 
> variables, to a constant. An exponential Diophantine equation is one in which 
> exponents on terms can be unknowns.
> 
> **I'd guess no-based on the above description**
> 

Why? I use “diophantine equation” in that precise sense. I have often given an 
example of universal (in the Turing sense of course) diophantine equation, or 
of a universal system of Diophantine equation . 
I can put it again, of course it is not obvious that it is Turing universal. 
That comes from the work of Matiyasevic, and also Jones:



(unknowns range on the non negative integers (= 0 included)
31 unknowns: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, W, Z, 
U, Y, Al, Ga, Et, Th, La, Ta, Ph, and two parameters:  Nu and X.

X is in W_Nu iff   phi_Nu(X) stop if and only if


BEGIN:

Nu = ((ZUY)^2 + U)^2 + Y 

ELG^2 + Al = (B - XY)Q^2

Qu = B^(5^60)

La + Qu^4 = 1 + LaB^5

Th +  2Z = B^5

L = U + TTh

E = Y + MTh

N = Q^16

R = [G + EQ^3 + LQ^5 + (2(E - ZLa)(1 + XB^5 + G)^4 + LaB^5 + + 
LaB^5Q^4)Q^4](N^2 -N)
 + [Q^3 -BL + L + ThLaQ^3 + (B^5 - 2)Q^5] (N^2 - 1)

P = 2W(S^2)(R^2)N^2

(P^2)K^2 - K^2 + 1 = Ta^2

4(c - KSN^2)^2 + Et = K^2

K = R + 1 + HP - H

A = (WN^2 + 1)RSN^2

C = 2R + 1 Ph

D = BW + CA -2C + 4AGa -5Ga

D^2 = (A^2 - 1)C^2 + 1

F^2 = (A^2 - 1)(I^2)C^4 + 1

(D + OF)^2 = ((A + F^2(D^2 - A^2))^2 - 1)(2R + 1 + JC)^2 + 1

END





> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Mon, Jul 23, 2018 7:24 am
> Subject: Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?
> 
> 
> On 21 Jul 2018, at 18:02, John Clark  > wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Jason Resch  > wrote:
> 
> >> If "Abbey" is the being before the teleportation then obviously by 
> >> definition "Abbey" will not exist after the teleportation. Are you sure 
> >> you really want to go with that definition?  
> 
> > Okay we can go with your definition as anyone who remembers being Abby, 
> > what is important is that our language and definitions are consistent.
> Yes, some definitions are more useful than others but the most important 
> thing is that they be used consistently  
> > So we have:
> "Earth Abby" - The Abby at time 0 on Earth
> "Abby-1" - The Abby who ends up at her intended destination on Mars, at time 1
> "Abby-2" - The Abby who ends up at her admirer's destination on Mars, at time 
> 1
> "Abby" - Anyone who remembers being Earth Abby (includes Earth Abby, Abby-1, 
> Abby-2)
>  
> After duplication it would be misleading to call anything "THE Abby". Abby-1 
> is just Abby plus something extra, lets call it M.  And Abby-2 is just Abby 
> plus something extra that is different, lets call it W.  Both are Abby but 
> Abby-1 is not Abby-2.
> 
> Yes, we agree on this since day one. But to answer to the step-3 question, we 
> must keep in mind that it refers to the first person self lived by, obviously 
> with computationalism, both copies. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> I define "Abby" as anyone who remembers being Abbey before the 
> >> duplication. Do you disagree?
>  
> > No, we can go with that.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> OK, and since 2 people meet the definition of "Abbey" then there is simply no 
> getting around the fact that "Abbey" will see 2 entirely different things at 
> exactly the same time.
> 
> 
> That is the 3-1 description, but that does not answer the question about the 
> 1-description, as lived by any copies, which obviously cannot have a first 
> person perception of the two cities at once FROM that first person 
> perspective. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever I say something like that Bruno says but that contradicts blah blah, 
> but if true then the only alternative is to change the 

Re: Radioactive Decay States

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 24 Jul 2018, at 09:19, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 4:27:03 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 20 Jul 2018, at 23:12, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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:
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Nevertheless, I still stand with Schroedinger that in any quantum 
>>> superposition, other than for slit experiments, the system cannot be in all 
>>> eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.
>> 
>> Then you can no more explain the working of an interferometer, or polariser, 
>> or even the structure of the hydrogen atoms, molecules, etc. You are just 
>> saying that QM works for the double slit, but not for anything else. That is 
>> contrary to the fact that QM has just never been shown wrong, at any scale 
>> and level.
>> 
>> Sorry, but I see you have no clue what I have been claiming in this thread. 
>> Although I infer that English isn't your native language, you know it well 
>> enough to understand my claim; yet you do NOT. How can you expect to posit 
>> new theories about reality, such as based on arithmetic, if you are unable 
>> to understand simple English?  
>> 
>> OK, let me start again. I am NOT questioning the CALCULATED results of QM.
> 
> 
> That is ambiguous. Is it SWE + COLLAPSE, or just SWE (+ Mechanism) ?
> 
> That you ask this question, shows you still have no clue what I am arguing 
> about. Thanks for your time. AG 


What are you arguing about? I’m afraid you are unclear in many of your replies, 
including to others. But you seem to believe that there is no superposition, 
which makes me doubt you have study QM, which is all about superposition. I do 
miss something, you might perhaps try to clarify. 

Bruno


> 
> Personally by QM I mean the SWE or its Dirac Version, or DeWitt-Wheeler, etc. 
> Once I understood that Bohr’s perturbation act needs FTL influence, I have 
> ceased to judge the collapse plausible.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 Monday, July 23, 2018 at 4:27:03 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Jul 2018, at 23:12, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> 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:
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>> *Nevertheless, I still stand with Schroedinger that in any quantum 
>> superposition, other than for slit experiments, the system cannot be in all 
>> eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.*
>>
>>
>> Then you can no more explain the working of an interferometer, or 
>> polariser, or even the structure of the hydrogen atoms, molecules, etc. You 
>> are just saying that QM works for the double slit, but not for anything 
>> else. That is contrary to the fact that QM has just never been shown wrong, 
>> at any scale and level.
>>
>
>
>
> *Sorry, but I see you have no clue what I have been claiming in this 
> thread. Although I infer that English isn't your native language, you know 
> it well enough to understand my claim; yet you do NOT. How can you expect 
> to posit new theories about reality, such as based on arithmetic, if you 
> are unable to understand simple English?  OK, let me start again. I am NOT 
> questioning the CALCULATED results of QM.*
>
>
>
> That is ambiguous. Is it SWE + COLLAPSE, or just SWE (+ Mechanism) ?
>


*That you ask this question, shows you still have no clue what I am arguing 
about. Thanks for your time. AG *

>
> Personally by QM I mean the SWE or its Dirac Version, or DeWitt-Wheeler, 
> etc. Once I understood that Bohr’s perturbation act needs FTL influence, I 
> have ceased to judge the collapse plausible.
>
>
>

-- 
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.