Re: Realizable quantum states

On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 5:17:16 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Brent Meeker > wrote: > >> ?? Quantum computers cannot calculate anything more than classical >> computers. There are some algorithms that allow a QC to calculate >> something faster; but the

Re: Realizable quantum states

On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 5:08:24 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 10:30 PM, > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:11:47 AM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 6:44 PM, wrote: >>> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 11:23:49 PM

Re: Realizable quantum states

From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Brent Meeker > wrote: ?? Quantum computers cannot calculate anything more than classical computers.  There are some algorithms that allow a QC to calculate something

Re: Realizable quantum states

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: > ?? Quantum computers cannot calculate anything more than classical > computers. There are some algorithms that allow a QC to calculate > something faster; but the domain and range is the same. > > So absent that reason does it follow that

Re: Realizable quantum states

?? Quantum computers cannot calculate anything more than classical computers.  There are some algorithms that allow a QC to calculate something faster; but the domain and range is the same. So absent that reason does it follow that the wave function is merely a convenient (and very accurate)

Re: Realizable quantum states

On 7/29/2018 8:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 6:44 PM, > wrote: On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 11:23:49 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 10:31:05 PM UTC, Jason

Re: Realizable quantum states

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 10:30 PM, wrote: > > > On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:11:47 AM UTC, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 6:44 PM, wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 11:23:49 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at

Re: Realizable quantum states

On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:11:47 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 6:44 PM, > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 11:23:49 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 10:31:05 PM UTC, Jason wrote: Quantum computers

Re: Realizable quantum states

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 6:44 PM, wrote: > > > On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 11:23:49 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 10:31:05 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> Quantum computers represent a disproof of the conjecture that the wave >>> function is merely a

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 9:13 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > From: Jason Resch > > > If you want to know why so many of us are under the spell of MWI and have > demented our own view of reality into a stark violation of what ours senses > so plainly tell us (and you), it is because we have found the

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> If you want to know why so many of us are under the spell of MWI and have demented our own view of reality into a stark violation of what ours senses so plainly tell us (and you), it is because we have found the conceptual problems that arise

Re: Realizable quantum states

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 11:23:49 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 10:31:05 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >> >> Quantum computers represent a disproof of the conjecture that the wave >> function is merely a convenience or tool for estimating probabilities of >>

Re: Realizable quantum states

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 10:31:05 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > Quantum computers represent a disproof of the conjecture that the wave > function is merely a convenience or tool for estimating probabilities of > experimental outcomes, rather than something that is real. The reason: it > does

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > *Facts provide finite amount of information, * > Yes, but most theories provide no information at all because most theories are worthless. Its rather incredible, this list has become so effete and unscientific that I actually have to

Re: Realizable quantum states

Quantum computers represent a disproof of the conjecture that the wave function is merely a convenience or tool for estimating probabilities of experimental outcomes, rather than something that is real. The reason: it does things we cannot. Jason On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 11:23 PM, wrote: > Up

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 8:17:34 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 5:32:37 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 12:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> *>If you want to know why so many of us are under the spell of MWI and >>> have

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 5:32:37 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 12:01 PM, Jason Resch > wrote: > > *>If you want to know why so many of us are under the spell of MWI and >> have demented our own view of reality into a stark violation of what ours >> senses so

Re: My final word on the MWI --

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 3:08:50 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 28 Jul 2018, at 20:36, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > In the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation the counterfactual does not exist. > > > Here I disagree. They continue to exist in the potential so that it guides > the

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 12:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: *>If you want to know why so many of us are under the spell of MWI and have > demented our own view of reality into a stark violation of what ours senses > so plainly tell us (and you), it is because we have found the conceptual > problems

Re: My final word on the MWI --

On 29 July 2018 at 17:33, wrote: > > > On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 1:54:06 PM UTC, telmo_menezes wrote: >> >> On 29 July 2018 at 15:46, smitra wrote: >> > My final word would be the following. There only exists an eternal >> > multiverse comprising of all possible observations. > > > This is a

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

If you want to know why so many of us are under the spell of MWI and have demented our own view of reality into a stark violation of what ours senses so plainly tell us (and you), it is because we have found the conceptual problems that arise from rejecting MWI an even harder pill to swallow. The

Re: My final word on the MWI --

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 1:54:06 PM UTC, telmo_menezes wrote: > > On 29 July 2018 at 15:46, smitra > wrote: > > My final word would be the following. There only exists an eternal > > multiverse comprising of all possible observations. This is a conjecture for which no support exists. AG

Re: My final word on the MWI --

On 29 July 2018 at 15:46, smitra wrote: > My final word would be the following. There only exists an eternal > multiverse comprising of all possible observations. Here "observation" is a > complete description that includes everything that is experienced which > includes the identity of the

Re: My final word on the MWI --

My final word would be the following. There only exists an eternal multiverse comprising of all possible observations. Here "observation" is a complete description that includes everything that is experienced which includes the identity of the observer. If my knee hurts, then the fact that

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 9:10:57 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 7:40:44 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 28 Jul 2018, at 11:11, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 7:26:56 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

On Sunday, July 29, 2018 at 7:40:44 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 28 Jul 2018, at 11:11, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 7:26:56 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 7/25/2018 11:54 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 25 Jul 2018, at 16:36, Jason Resch

Re: Radioactive Decay States

> On 28 Jul 2018, at 14:37, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 11:39:34 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 27 Jul 2018, at 21:07, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 10:41:32 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 26 Jul 2018,

Re: My final word on the MWI --

> On 28 Jul 2018, at 20:36, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 12:44:54 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > The whole weirdness of QM is that we can measure effects which in that > formalism entails the actuality of counterfactuals. > > Counterfactuals in QM do

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

> On 28 Jul 2018, at 19:20, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > >>Despite what the current President of the USA says facts actually exist; > >>and so it is not an assumption it is a FACT that neither I nor anybody else

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

> On 28 Jul 2018, at 11:11, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 7:26:56 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > On 7/25/2018 11:54 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 25 Jul 2018, at 16:36, Jason Resch > >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:47 PM,

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

> On 28 Jul 2018, at 06:42, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:20:55PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> According to CERN(*), very recently, some neutrino would have a FTL > speed. > > Did you check the date of that post? I think you might have been > pranked. OK. Good!