Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/31/2018 10:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 4:52 PM Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 7/31/2018 2:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018, Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



On 7/31/2018 9:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:11 AM Brent Meeker
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com
 wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent
wrote:



On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

*and claims the system being measured is
physically in all eigenstates simultaneously
before measurement.*



Nobody claims that this is true. But most of
us would I think agree that this is what
happens if you describe the couple “observer
particle” by QM, i.e by the quantum wave. It
is a consequence of elementary quantum
mechanics (unless of course you add the
unintelligible collapse of the wave, which
for me just means that QM is false).


This talk of "being in eigenstates" is
confused. An eigenstate is relative to some
operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate
of an operator.  Ideal measurements are
projection operators that leave the system in
an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal
measurements are rare in QM.  All the
measurements you're discussing in Young's slit
examples are destructive measurements. You can
consider, as a mathematical convenience, using
a complete set of commuting operators to
define a set of eigenstates that will provide
a basis...but remember that it's just
mathematics, a certain choice of basis.  The
system is always in just one state and the
mathematics says there is some operator for
which that is the eigenstate. But in general
we don't know what that operator is and we
have no way of physically implementing it.

Brent


*I can only speak for myself, but when I write
that a system in a superposition of states is in
all component states simultaneously, I am assuming
the existence of an operator with eigenstates that
form a complete set and basis, that the wf is
written as a sum using this basis, and that this
representation corresponds to the state of the
system before measurement. *


In general you need a set of operators to have the
eigenstates form a complete basis...but OK.


*I am also assuming that the interpretation of a
quantum superposition is that before measurement,
the system is in all eigenstates simultaneously,
one of which represents the system after
measurement. I do allow for situations where we
write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates even
if we don't know what the operator is, such as the
Up + Dn state of a spin particle. In the case of
the cat, using the hypothesis of superposition I
argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if
"occupied" by the system simultaneously, implies
the cat is alive and dead simultaneously. AG *


Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to
realize that physically would require that the cat
be perfectly isolated and not even radiate IR
photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is
in fact impossible to realize (which is why
Schroedinger considered if absurd).

*
CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it
is assumed the cat is initially isolated and decoheres
in a fraction of a nano second. So, IMO, the problem
with the interpretation of superposition remains. *


Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat
dying takes at least several seconds, very long compared
to decoherence times.  So the cat is always in a

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 4:52 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 7/31/2018 2:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 7/31/2018 9:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:11 AM Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



 On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> *and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates
> simultaneously before measurement.*
>
>
>
> Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree
> that this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” 
> by
> QM, i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum
> mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the
> wave, which for me just means that QM is false).
>
>
> This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is
> relative to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an
> operator.  Ideal measurements are projection operators that leave the
> system in an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare
> in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit examples 
> are
> destructive measurements.  You can consider, as a mathematical 
> convenience,
> using a complete set of commuting operators to define a set of eigenstates
> that will provide a basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a
> certain choice of basis.  The system is always in just one state and the
> mathematics says there is some operator for which that is the eigenstate.
> But in general we don't know what that operator is and we have no way of
> physically implementing it.
>
> Brent
>

 *I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a
 superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am
 assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a complete
 set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that
 this representation corresponds to the state of the system before
 measurement.  *


 In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a
 complete basis...but OK.

 *I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition
 is that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates
 simultaneously, one of which represents the system after measurement. I do
 allow for situations where we write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates
 even if we don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a
 spin particle. In the case of the cat, using the hypothesis of
 superposition I argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if "occupied"
 by the system simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead
 simultaneously. AG *


 Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that
 physically would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even
 radiate IR photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact
 impossible to realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).

>>>
>>> * CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the
>>> cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. So,
>>> IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains. *
>>>
>>>
>>> Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying takes at
>>> least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times.  So the cat
>>> is always in a *classical* state between |alive> and |dead>. These are
>>> never in superposition.
>>>
>>> *It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly short. *
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes is does go away.  Even light can't travel the length of a cat in a
>>> nano-second.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What if the cat is on Pluto for this one hour?  Would it not be perfectly
>> isolated from us on Earth, and thus remain in a superposition until the the
>> several hours it takes for light to get to Earth from Pluto reaches us?
>>
>>
>> ?? Are you assuming that decoherence only occurs when humans (or
>> Earthlings) observe the event?
>>
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
>  No, just that superposition is a relative, rather than objective notion.
>
>
> OK.  Welcome to QBism.
>

After reading the wiki article on QBism I still can't say I understand what
it is about, as it doesn't seem to offer any core positions.

I am an adherent of bayesianism, and believe it applies generally in all
domains (being an agent having to make decisions/bets), so what do

Re: Realizable quantum states

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 4:54 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 7/31/2018 2:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 7/31/2018 9:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>> What I was referring to with the "can only be seen" were the *effects*
>> of the interference, be they the final results of the quantum computation
>> or the light and dark bands in the two slit experiment.
>>
>>
>> So by "effects" you mean classical effects...although I thought your
>> world view denied the existence of the classical.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> How are either of those observations classical?
>
>
> Seeing light and dark bands is something others can confirm, I can
> photograph and put in my lab notebook and people can read about it and
> reproduce it years from now.  What do you mean by "classical"?
>

You said I denied the existence of the classical. I am not sure what this
means. I do reject the idea that the macroscopic world is ruled by laws
that are different from the microscopic world, if that is what you meant,
and believe the laws of QM apply at all scales.  In which case all
observations are quantum mechanical observations since there is no
classical level different from the QM level.

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?

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 2:09:45 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/31/2018 6:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 12:11:48 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/31/2018 2:43 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 7:14:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/31/2018 6:43 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:11:18 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> *and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates 
>> simultaneously before measurement.*
>>
>>
>>
>> Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree that 
>> this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” by QM, 
>> i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum 
>> mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the 
>> wave, which for me just means that QM is false). 
>>
>>
>> This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is 
>> relative to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an 
>> operator.  Ideal measurements are projection operators that leave the 
>> system in an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare 
>> in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit examples are 
>> destructive measurements.  You can consider, as a mathematical convenience, 
>> using a complete set of commuting operators to define a set of eigenstates 
>> that will provide a basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a 
>> certain choice of basis.  The system is always in just one state and the 
>> mathematics says there is some operator for which that is the eigenstate.  
>> But in general we don't know what that operator is and we have no way of 
>> physically implementing it.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> *I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a 
>> superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am 
>> assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a complete 
>> set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that 
>> this representation corresponds to the state of the system before 
>> measurement.  *
>>
>>
>> In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a 
>> complete basis...but OK.
>>
>> *I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition is 
>> that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates simultaneously, 
>> one of which represents the system after measurement. I do allow for 
>> situations where we write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates even if 
>> we don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a spin 
>> particle. In the case of the cat, using the hypothesis of superposition I 
>> argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if "occupied" by the system 
>> simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead simultaneously. AG *
>>
>>
>> Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that 
>> physically would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even 
>> radiate IR photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact 
>> impossible to realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).
>>
>>
>> * CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the 
>> cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. So, 
>> IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains. *
>>
>>
>> Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying takes at 
>> least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times.  So the cat 
>> is always in a *classical* state between |alive> and |dead>. These are 
>> never in superposition. 
>>
>>
>>
>> * When you start your analysis /experiment using decoherence theory, 
>> don't you assume the cat is isolated from the environment? It must be if 
>> you say it later decoheres (even if later is only a nano second). Why is 
>> this not a problem if, as you say, it is impossible to isolate the cat? AG *
>>
>>
>> That it is impossible to isolate the cat is the source of the 
>> absurdity...not that it exists in a superposition later.
>>
>>
>> *But if you claim the cat decoheres in some exceedingly short time based 
>> on decoherence theory and the wf you write  taking into account the 
>> apparatus, observer, and remaining environment, mustn't the cat be 
>> initially isolated for this to make sense? AG*
>>
>>
>> It never made sense.  That it didn't make sense was Schroedinger's point, 
>> he just didn't correctly identify where it first failed to make sense, i.e. 
>> in the idea that a cat could be isolat

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 31 Jul 2018, at 04:05, John Clark > wrote:


On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Jason Resch >wrote:


>>
You and I have quantum entangledcoins, I'm on Earth and
you're in the Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away.  I
flip my coin 100 times and record my sequences of heads and
tails and then just one hour later you do the same thing.


/
>
It doesn't work like that. You need to generate the coins at one
location, then bring them separately (at sub C speeds) from the
location they were created to Earth and Andromeda.  It's because
of this that FTL is not not needed under QM to explain EPR.  If
it worked as you said then it would require FTL.  But you can't
keep flipping the same coin./



I was simplifying things to get to the essential difference between a 
communication and a influence and you're just changing one apparently 
random sequence to a different apparently random sequence and the 
only way to tell that something funney is going on is when the two 
results are checked sinde by side which can only be done at the speed 
of light or less. But if you want exact then substitute the coins for 
2 streams of 100 spin correlated electrons created midway between 
Andromeda and Earth and replace the coin flips for 2 Stern Gerlach 
magnets oriented the same way.



If Alice and Bob are space-separated, and that they have not yet 
measure anything, how could they know (first person) that they are in 
the same branch?


Very easily. They had coffee together beforehand. They were in the same 
branch then, and have not jumped between branches in the meantime.


How do you make sense on this if only locally? There is an infinity of 
Bob and Alice,


No, there are not any infinities of anything. You simply confuse 
yourself by continuing to claim such things which are not part of 
quantum mechanics.



and all what they both know is that they share some historical reality 
with a relative partner, so that their simps are correlated, but they 
are are ignorant and thus distributed on infinitely many histories, 
with all the correlation between different spin “angle” (assuming a 
fixed base to describe them).
I might be wrong, but the violation of Bell’s inequality (or 
Kochen-Specker theorem) does not entail any physical instantaneous 
action at a distance. I have seen may attempt to prove this, but they 
always favour a branch in a way or another, forgetting the 
probabilities bear on different portioning of the multiverse in the 
big picture.


Any evaluation of a set of correlations between experimental results 
happens in one branch of the superposition. So much for "favouring a 
branch in a way or another." There is simply no other way to evaluate 
the correlations. There is no "big picture" that is going to change this 
conclusion.



It makes the whole physics becoming covariant, despite necessary 
relative local appearance of what seem to be an action at a distance. 
There are none, but to show this, we must take into account the fact 
that Alice and Bob find all correlated results in all directions.


Physics is covariant in any case. The non-locality is real -- it is not 
just an 'appearance'. Bell's theorem and the observed correlations prove 
this.


Bruce

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

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 31 Jul 2018, at 03:39, Bruce Kellett > wrote:


From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:57 PM John Clark > wrote:


On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:11 PM, smitra mailto:smi...@zonnet.nl>>wrote:

/
>
A concept of "influence" without any information transfer is
ambiguous. The meaning of this "influence" will be dependent
on the particular interpretation used, it has no operational
meaning.
/

/
/
Communicating is not the same as influencing, communicating
means transferring Shannon style information and entanglement
can't do that faster than light. But it will still let you
influence things faster than light. Quantum entanglement can
influence things faster than light but you need more than that
to transmit information, you need a standard to measure that
change against, and Quantum Mechanics can't provide that
standard; all it can do is change one apparently random state to
another apparently random state.

You and I have quantum entangledcoins, I'm on Earth and you're
in the Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away.  I flip my
coin 100 times and record my sequences of heads and tails and
then just one hour later you do the same thing.


It doesn't work like that. You need to generate the coins at one 
location, then bring them separately (at sub C speeds) from the 
location they were created to Earth and Andromeda.  It's because of 
this that FTL is not not needed under QM to explain EPR.


Bell's theorem rules out this "common cause" explanation. Such an 
explanation would be a local hidden variable account, and that is 
ruled out. Claiming that Bell's theorem doesn't apply to many-worlds 
doesn't work either. I think that any "common cause" explanation 
would have to contend with the Kochen-Specker theorem -- which also 
rules out any such hidden variables.



Bell, and Kochen-Specker rule out basically all hidden variable 
theory, or make them non local. But when we abandon the collapse, or 
any singularisation of a reality through measurement/interaction, I 
don’t see how such result would entai action at a distance. If you 
have references I am interested.


As I have proved in detail, collapse has nothing to do with it. Bell's 
result holds for many-worlds as it does for a single-world theory. The 
"Spooky action at a distance" is simply what is observed -- the result 
for particle 2 depends on what was done to particle 1, even at 
space-like separations. Whether you call this an 'influence' or simple 
an 'effect of one measurement on the other', makes little difference. 
The point is that there is no information exchange in the normal Shannon 
sense of information, so there is no possibility of transmitting a 
message by this "influence". In particular, there is no physical FTL 
transfer, and special relativity is not violated.


Bruce

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

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:04 PM Bruce Kellett 
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:


From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>


Do Kochen and Specker assume counterfactual definiteness? Bell
did, which is why his theorem does not apply to many-worlds.


No, completely wrong. Bell does not assume counterfactual
definiteness. See Maudlin: "What Bell proved: A Reply to Baylock",
Am. J. Phys. 78, 121 (2010).


There is another reply by Robert B. Griffiths "EPR, Bell, and quantum 
locality" ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.4281.pdf 
 ) which says that Mauldin was 
wrong in his reply to Baylock. Who to believe?


Oh dear! Oh dear! Oh! the irony of it!
When I first read through Griffiths supposed rebuttal of Maudlin , I 
almost fell off my chair laughing. He has made exactly the same mistake 
that von Neumann made in his supposed proof of the impossibility of 
hidden variables. Bell, in his 1966 RMP paper "On the problem of hidden 
variables in quantum mechanics" gives the following account of von 
Neumann's proof. "His essential assumption is: Any real linear 
combination of any two Hermitian operators represents an observable, and 
the same linear combination of expectation values is the expectation 
value of the combination. This is true for quantum mechanical states; it 
is required by von Neumann of the hypothetical dispersion free states 
also." Bell points out that this requirement is quite unreasonable, 
because "the latter is a quite peculiar property of quantum mechanical 
states, not to be expected /a priori/. There is no reason to demand it 
individually of the hypothetical dispersion free states, whose function 
it is to reproduce the /measurable/ peculiarities of quantum mechanics 
/when averaged over/."


Griffiths does exactly the same thing in his analysis of Maudlin's 
argument in Section VI of the above paper. Maudlin provisionally assumes 
locality, then looks to see what properties the singlet state must have 
to satisfy the quantum predictions. In other words, he looks for a local 
hidden variable account -- what is the "common cause" that gives rise to 
the observed correlations? So his point M5 is: "Therefore the complete 
physical description of particle b must determine how it is disposed to 
yield a particular outcome for each possible spin measurement, because 
M1 [opposite spin projections for parallel magnets for particles a and 
b] holds for any spin component."


This is exactly what one would require the hypothetical hidden variable 
account to do -- the hidden variables, in the terminology used above by 
Bell, are the supposed dispersion-free states. Griffiths criticizes this 
in the following way: "However, at M5 we arrive at a significant 
divergence from the principle of Hilbert space quantum mechanics that 
states that any physical description of a particle at a single time must 
correspond to some subspace of its Hilbert space. Neither |psi_0> nor 
any subspace of H_b for particle b can be interpreted as indicating how 
particle b is disposed to yield a /particular/ outcome for /each/ 
possible spin measurement." Exactly, this is what QM says, but that 
cannot be demanded of the supposed dispersion-free hidden variable 
states , because they are not part of the standard quantum framework.


This is the von Neumann mistake all over again, and Bell's rejoinder is 
apposite also to Griffith's so-called "rebuttal" of Maudlin. Hidden 
variable states do not obey the same rules as quantum states, and it is 
unreasonable to demand that they do.


One just has to realize that Maudlin is presenting an analysis of what 
would actually be required of a local account of the EPR correlations. 
He is aware that any such analysis has to be in terms of local hidden 
variables. He then points out that Bell's theorem tells us that no such 
local hidden variable theory can reproduce the predicted quantum 
correlations -- that are experimentally confirmed.


Griffiths goes on the claim that Bell's result can be derived by 
assuming counterfactual definiteness, but he is not as clear that such 
an assumption is actually necessary. And of course, as Maudlin points 
out, Bell makes no such assumption. There is no need to make 
counterfactual claims about measurements that were not made in order to 
derive Bell's result. In fact, derivations that do refer to such 
counterfactuals are all highly contrived and artificial -- 
counterfactual arguments are not necessary, so no assumptions need be 
made about conterfactual definiteness or the lack of it.


Griffiths claims to have disposed of Maudlin's argument against Baylock. 
His own account of EPR-type correlations starts from the strong 
assumption that quantum mechanics is necessarily completely local. If 
his section V on EPR correlations, he blathers on at considerable length 
without actually saying very much, and then pull

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/31/2018 6:22 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 12:11:48 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/31/2018 2:43 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 7:14:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/31/2018 6:43 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:11:18 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC,
Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:



On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM
UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno
Marchal wrote:

*and claims the system
being measured is
physically in all
eigenstates simultaneously
before measurement.*



Nobody claims that this is
true. But most of us would I
think agree that this is what
happens if you describe the
couple “observer particle” by
QM, i.e by the quantum wave.
It is a consequence of
elementary quantum mechanics
(unless of course you add the
unintelligible collapse of the
wave, which for me just means
that QM is false).


This talk of "being in
eigenstates" is confused.  An
eigenstate is relative to some
operator.  The system can be in an
eigenstate of an operator. Ideal
measurements are projection
operators that leave the system in
an eigenstate of that operator. 
But ideal measurements are rare in
QM. All the measurements you're
discussing in Young's slit
examples are destructive
measurements.  You can consider,
as a mathematical convenience,
using a complete set of commuting
operators to define a set of
eigenstates that will provide a
basis...but remember that it's
just mathematics, a certain choice
of basis.  The system is always in
just one state and the mathematics
says there is some operator for
which that is the eigenstate.  But
in general we don't know what that
operator is and we have no way of
physically implementing it.

Brent


*I can only speak for myself, but when
I write that a system in a
superposition of states is in all
component states simultaneously, I am
assuming the existence of an operator
with eigenstates that form a complete
set and basis, that the wf is written
as a sum using this basis, and that
this representation corresponds to the
state of the system before measurement. *


In general you need a set of operators to
have the eigenstates form a complete
basis...but OK.

*I am also assuming that the
interpretation of a quantum
superposition is that before
measurement, the system is in all
   

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 1:22:44 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 12:11:48 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/31/2018 2:43 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 7:14:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/31/2018 6:43 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:11:18 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> *and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates 
> simultaneously before measurement.*
>
>
>
> Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree that 
> this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” by QM, 
> i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum 
> mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the 
> wave, which for me just means that QM is false). 
>
>
> This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is 
> relative to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an 
> operator.  Ideal measurements are projection operators that leave the 
> system in an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare 
> in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit examples are 
> destructive measurements.  You can consider, as a mathematical convenience, 
> using a complete set of commuting operators to define a set of eigenstates 
> that will provide a basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a 
> certain choice of basis.  The system is always in just one state and the 
> mathematics says there is some operator for which that is the eigenstate.  
> But in general we don't know what that operator is and we have no way of 
> physically implementing it.
>
> Brent
>
>
> *I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a 
> superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am 
> assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a complete 
> set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that 
> this representation corresponds to the state of the system before 
> measurement.  *
>
>
> In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a 
> complete basis...but OK.
>
> *I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition is 
> that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates simultaneously, 
> one of which represents the system after measurement. I do allow for 
> situations where we write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates even if 
> we don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a spin 
> particle. In the case of the cat, using the hypothesis of superposition I 
> argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if "occupied" by the system 
> simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead simultaneously. AG *
>
>
> Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that physically 
> would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even radiate IR 
> photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact impossible to 
> realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).
>
>
> * CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the 
> cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. So, 
> IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains. *
>
>
> Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying takes at 
> least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times.  So the cat 
> is always in a *classical* state between |alive> and |dead>. These are 
> never in superposition. 
>
>
>
> * When you start your analysis /experiment using decoherence theory, don't 
> you assume the cat is isolated from the environment? It must be if you say 
> it later decoheres (even if later is only a nano second). Why is this not a 
> problem if, as you say, it is impossible to isolate the cat? AG *
>
>
> That it is impossible to isolate the cat is the source of the 
> absurdity...not that it exists in a superposition later.
>
>
> *But if you claim the cat decoheres in some exceedingly short time based 
> on decoherence theory and the wf you write  taking into account the 
> apparatus, observer, and remaining environment, mustn't the cat be 
> initially isolated for this to make sense? AG*
>
>
> It never made sense.  That it didn't make sense was Schroedinger's point, 
> he just didn't correctly identify where it first failed to make sense, i.e. 
> in the idea that a cat could be isolated.  Since the cat can't be isolated 
> then |alive> and |dead> can only appear in a mixture, not in a coherent 
> superposition.
>
> Brent
>
>
>
> *But when you includ

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 12:11:48 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/31/2018 2:43 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 7:14:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/31/2018 6:43 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:11:18 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> *and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates 
> simultaneously before measurement.*
>
>
>
> Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree that 
> this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” by QM, 
> i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum 
> mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the 
> wave, which for me just means that QM is false). 
>
>
> This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is 
> relative to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an 
> operator.  Ideal measurements are projection operators that leave the 
> system in an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare 
> in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit examples are 
> destructive measurements.  You can consider, as a mathematical convenience, 
> using a complete set of commuting operators to define a set of eigenstates 
> that will provide a basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a 
> certain choice of basis.  The system is always in just one state and the 
> mathematics says there is some operator for which that is the eigenstate.  
> But in general we don't know what that operator is and we have no way of 
> physically implementing it.
>
> Brent
>
>
> *I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a 
> superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am 
> assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a complete 
> set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that 
> this representation corresponds to the state of the system before 
> measurement.  *
>
>
> In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a 
> complete basis...but OK.
>
> *I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition is 
> that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates simultaneously, 
> one of which represents the system after measurement. I do allow for 
> situations where we write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates even if 
> we don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a spin 
> particle. In the case of the cat, using the hypothesis of superposition I 
> argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if "occupied" by the system 
> simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead simultaneously. AG *
>
>
> Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that physically 
> would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even radiate IR 
> photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact impossible to 
> realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).
>
>
> * CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the 
> cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. So, 
> IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains. *
>
>
> Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying takes at 
> least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times.  So the cat 
> is always in a *classical* state between |alive> and |dead>. These are 
> never in superposition. 
>
>
>
> * When you start your analysis /experiment using decoherence theory, don't 
> you assume the cat is isolated from the environment? It must be if you say 
> it later decoheres (even if later is only a nano second). Why is this not a 
> problem if, as you say, it is impossible to isolate the cat? AG *
>
>
> That it is impossible to isolate the cat is the source of the 
> absurdity...not that it exists in a superposition later.
>
>
> *But if you claim the cat decoheres in some exceedingly short time based 
> on decoherence theory and the wf you write  taking into account the 
> apparatus, observer, and remaining environment, mustn't the cat be 
> initially isolated for this to make sense? AG*
>
>
> It never made sense.  That it didn't make sense was Schroedinger's point, 
> he just didn't correctly identify where it first failed to make sense, i.e. 
> in the idea that a cat could be isolated.  Since the cat can't be isolated 
> then |alive> and |dead> can only appear in a mixture, not in a coherent 
> superposition.
>
> Brent
>


*But when you include the cat in a superposition wf using decoherence 
theory, you have a two state system

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/31/2018 2:43 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 7:14:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/31/2018 6:43 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:11:18 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC,
Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

*and claims the system being
measured is physically in all
eigenstates simultaneously before
measurement.*



Nobody claims that this is true. But
most of us would I think agree that
this is what happens if you describe
the couple “observer particle” by QM,
i.e by the quantum wave. It is a
consequence of elementary quantum
mechanics (unless of course you add
the unintelligible collapse of the
wave, which for me just means that QM
is false).


This talk of "being in eigenstates" is
confused.  An eigenstate is relative to
some operator.  The system can be in an
eigenstate of an operator. Ideal
measurements are projection operators that
leave the system in an eigenstate of that
operator.  But ideal measurements are rare
in QM. All the measurements you're
discussing in Young's slit examples are
destructive measurements.  You can
consider, as a mathematical convenience,
using a complete set of commuting
operators to define a set of eigenstates
that will provide a basis...but remember
that it's just mathematics, a certain
choice of basis.  The system is always in
just one state and the mathematics says
there is some operator for which that is
the eigenstate.  But in general we don't
know what that operator is and we have no
way of physically implementing it.

Brent


*I can only speak for myself, but when I write
that a system in a superposition of states is
in all component states simultaneously, I am
assuming the existence of an operator with
eigenstates that form a complete set and
basis, that the wf is written as a sum using
this basis, and that this representation
corresponds to the state of the system before
measurement. *


In general you need a set of operators to have the
eigenstates form a complete basis...but OK.

*I am also assuming that the interpretation of
a quantum superposition is that before
measurement, the system is in all eigenstates
simultaneously, one of which represents the
system after measurement. I do allow for
situations where we write a superposition as a
sum of eigenstates even if we don't know what
the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of
a spin particle. In the case of the cat, using
the hypothesis of superposition I argue
against, we have two eigenstates, which if
"occupied" by the system simultaneously,
implies the cat is alive and dead
simultaneously. AG *


Yes, you can write down the math for that. But to
realize that physically would require that the cat
be perfectly isolated and not even radiate IR
photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it
is in fact impossible to realize (which is why
 

Re: Realizable quantum states

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/31/2018 2:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 7/31/2018 9:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

What I was referring to with the "can only be seen" were the
/effects/ of the interference, be they the final results of the
quantum computation or the light and dark bands in the two slit
experiment.


So by "effects" you mean classical effects...although I thought
your world view denied the existence of the classical.




How are either of those observations classical?


Seeing light and dark bands is something others can confirm, I can 
photograph and put in my lab notebook and people can read about it and 
reproduce it years from now.  What do you mean by "classical"?


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?

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/31/2018 2:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 7/31/2018 9:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:11 AM Brent Meeker
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com
 wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

*and claims the system being measured is
physically in all eigenstates simultaneously
before measurement.*



Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us
would I think agree that this is what happens if
you describe the couple “observer particle” by QM,
i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of
elementary quantum mechanics (unless of course you
add the unintelligible collapse of the wave, which
for me just means that QM is false).


This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused. 
An eigenstate is relative to some operator.  The
system can be in an eigenstate of an operator. 
Ideal measurements are projection operators that
leave the system in an eigenstate of that
operator.  But ideal measurements are rare in QM. 
All the measurements you're discussing in Young's
slit examples are destructive measurements.  You
can consider, as a mathematical convenience, using
a complete set of commuting operators to define a
set of eigenstates that will provide a basis...but
remember that it's just mathematics, a certain
choice of basis.  The system is always in just one
state and the mathematics says there is some
operator for which that is the eigenstate.  But in
general we don't know what that operator is and we
have no way of physically implementing it.

Brent


*I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a
system in a superposition of states is in all component
states simultaneously, I am assuming the existence of
an operator with eigenstates that form a complete set
and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this
basis, and that this representation corresponds to the
state of the system before measurement. *


In general you need a set of operators to have the
eigenstates form a complete basis...but OK.


*I am also assuming that the interpretation of a
quantum superposition is that before measurement, the
system is in all eigenstates simultaneously, one of
which represents the system after measurement. I do
allow for situations where we write a superposition as
a sum of eigenstates even if we don't know what the
operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a spin
particle. In the case of the cat, using the hypothesis
of superposition I argue against, we have two
eigenstates, which if "occupied" by the system
simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead
simultaneously. AG *


Yes, you can write down the math for that. But to
realize that physically would require that the cat be
perfectly isolated and not even radiate IR photons (c.f.
C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact impossible
to realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).

*
CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is
assumed the cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a
fraction of a nano second. So, IMO, the problem with the
interpretation of superposition remains. *


Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying
takes at least several seconds, very long compared to
decoherence times.  So the cat is always in a /*classical*/
state between |alive> and |dead>. These are never in
superposition.


*It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is
exceedingly short. *


Yes is does go away.  Even light can't travel the length of a
cat in a nano-second.



What if the cat is on Pluto for this one hour? Would it not be
perfectly isolated from us on Earth, and thus remain in a
superposition until the the several hours it takes for light to
get to Earth from Pluto reaches us?


?? 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 7:14:53 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/31/2018 6:43 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:11:18 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> *and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates 
> simultaneously before measurement.*
>
>
>
> Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree that 
> this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” by QM, 
> i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum 
> mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the 
> wave, which for me just means that QM is false). 
>
>
> This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is 
> relative to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an 
> operator.  Ideal measurements are projection operators that leave the 
> system in an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare 
> in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit examples are 
> destructive measurements.  You can consider, as a mathematical convenience, 
> using a complete set of commuting operators to define a set of eigenstates 
> that will provide a basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a 
> certain choice of basis.  The system is always in just one state and the 
> mathematics says there is some operator for which that is the eigenstate.  
> But in general we don't know what that operator is and we have no way of 
> physically implementing it.
>
> Brent
>
>
> *I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a 
> superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am 
> assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a complete 
> set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that 
> this representation corresponds to the state of the system before 
> measurement.  *
>
>
> In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a 
> complete basis...but OK.
>
> *I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition is 
> that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates simultaneously, 
> one of which represents the system after measurement. I do allow for 
> situations where we write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates even if 
> we don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a spin 
> particle. In the case of the cat, using the hypothesis of superposition I 
> argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if "occupied" by the system 
> simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead simultaneously. AG *
>
>
> Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that physically 
> would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even radiate IR 
> photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact impossible to 
> realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).
>
>
> * CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the 
> cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. So, 
> IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains. *
>
>
> Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying takes at 
> least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times.  So the cat 
> is always in a *classical* state between |alive> and |dead>. These are 
> never in superposition. 
>
>
>
> * When you start your analysis /experiment using decoherence theory, don't 
> you assume the cat is isolated from the environment? It must be if you say 
> it later decoheres (even if later is only a nano second). Why is this not a 
> problem if, as you say, it is impossible to isolate the cat? AG *
>
>
> That it is impossible to isolate the cat is the source of the 
> absurdity...not that it exists in a superposition later.


*But if you claim the cat decoheres in some exceedingly short time based on 
decoherence theory and the wf you write, taking into account the apparatus, 
observer, and remaining environment, mustn't the cat be initially isolated 
for this to make sense? AG*

>
> *It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly short. *
>
>
> Yes is does go away.  Even light can't travel the length of a cat in a 
> nano-second.  
>
>
> *And for this reason I still conclude that Schroedinger correctly pointed 
> out the fallacy in the standard interpretation of superposition; namely, 
> that the system represented by a superposition, is in all components states 
> simultaneously. AG *
>
>
> It's not a fallacy.  It just doesn't apply to the cat or other macroscopic 
> objects, with rare laboratory exceptions. 
>
>
> *Other than slit experi

Re: Realizable quantum states

[Jason Resch]

On Tuesday, July 31, 2018, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 7/31/2018 9:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> What I was referring to with the "can only be seen" were the *effects* of
> the interference, be they the final results of the quantum computation or
> the light and dark bands in the two slit experiment.
>
>
> So by "effects" you mean classical effects...although I thought your world
> view denied the existence of the classical.
>
>
>
>
>
>
How are either of those observations classical?

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.
>

-- 
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 Tuesday, July 31, 2018, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 7/31/2018 9:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:11 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



 On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 *and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates
 simultaneously before measurement.*



 Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree
 that this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” by
 QM, i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum
 mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the
 wave, which for me just means that QM is false).


 This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is
 relative to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an
 operator.  Ideal measurements are projection operators that leave the
 system in an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare
 in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit examples are
 destructive measurements.  You can consider, as a mathematical convenience,
 using a complete set of commuting operators to define a set of eigenstates
 that will provide a basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a
 certain choice of basis.  The system is always in just one state and the
 mathematics says there is some operator for which that is the eigenstate.
 But in general we don't know what that operator is and we have no way of
 physically implementing it.

 Brent

>>>
>>> *I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a
>>> superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am
>>> assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a complete
>>> set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that
>>> this representation corresponds to the state of the system before
>>> measurement.  *
>>>
>>>
>>> In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a
>>> complete basis...but OK.
>>>
>>> *I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition
>>> is that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates
>>> simultaneously, one of which represents the system after measurement. I do
>>> allow for situations where we write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates
>>> even if we don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a
>>> spin particle. In the case of the cat, using the hypothesis of
>>> superposition I argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if "occupied"
>>> by the system simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead
>>> simultaneously. AG *
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that
>>> physically would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even
>>> radiate IR photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact
>>> impossible to realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).
>>>
>>
>> * CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the
>> cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. So,
>> IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains. *
>>
>>
>> Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying takes at
>> least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times.  So the cat
>> is always in a *classical* state between |alive> and |dead>. These are
>> never in superposition.
>>
>> *It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly short. *
>>
>>
>> Yes is does go away.  Even light can't travel the length of a cat in a
>> nano-second.
>>
>>
>
> What if the cat is on Pluto for this one hour?  Would it not be perfectly
> isolated from us on Earth, and thus remain in a superposition until the the
> several hours it takes for light to get to Earth from Pluto reaches us?
>
>
> ?? Are you assuming that decoherence only occurs when humans (or
> Earthlings) observe the event?
>
>
> Brent
>


 No, just that superposition is a relative, rather than objective notion.

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.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/31/2018 9:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 31 Jul 2018, at 02:57, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 7/30/2018 4:11 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Brent Meeker >wrote:


>>
Many, perhaps most, physicists do exactly that because they
believe in the "Shut Up And Calculate" quantum
interpretation and are only interested in predicting how far
to the right a indicator needle on a meter moves in a
particular experiment. But for some of us that feels
unsatisfying and would like to have a deeper understanding
about what's going on at the quantum level and wonder
why there is nothing in the mathematics that says anything
about a wave collapsing. 



/
>
That's not true.  "The mathematics" originally included the Born
rule as part of the axiomatic structure of QM. /



 A axiom is supposed to be simple and self evidently true, the Born 
rule is neither; and it wasn't derived from first principles


??  You think matix mechanics was "derived from first principles"??  
What "first principles"?  Have you gone platonic on us?


it was picked for reasons that were were empirical and practical, 
for some strange reason the damn thing works.


Well, maybe it works because the Born rule is the only consistent way 
to put a probability measure on Hilbert space.  Born just inuitited 
the rule (and actually got it wrong and corrected it in a footnote); 
but Gleason proved it in 1957.  So the Born rule comes a lot closer 
to being "derived from first principles" than does Schroedinger's 
equation or matrix mechanics.



Yes. But we can suspect that Everett needs a form of mechanism, and 
with Church thesis, along with “yes doctor” that makes mandatory to 
derive matrix mechanics from first principle, like the FPI perhaps, 
and certainly something like at least one universal machinery, like 
elementary arithmetic or the combinators.






The catch is that Born had assume a probability interpretation; which 
nobody liked at the time because they could only think of probability 
as ignorance about ensembles and there were no ensembles...until Dewitt.


I like very much Dewitt, but Dewitt is the one who better understood 
Everett (after mocking him if I remember well).


I was referring to the fact that it was Dewitt who invented the 
mulitple-world interpretation.  Everett called it "the relative state" 
interpretation, and didn't consider multiple worlds.








Also, the square of the absolute value of the complex wave produces 
a probability which collapses into a certainty when a observation is 
made, but the mathematics can't say when that happens because it 
doesn't say what a observation is.


Mathematics never includes the interpretation that allows you to 
apply it.


That is wrong. Indeed Gödel’s incompleteness is already a case where 
mathematics includes interpretations of mathematical theories (set of 
beliefs).


Interpreting arithmetical equations as sets of beliefs is already 
interpretation.


Brent

Like Everett embeds the physicists in physics, mathematical logic 
embeds the mathematician in mathematics, and if mechanism is correct, 
there is not much choice left in the matter.


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.


--
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 7/31/2018 9:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:11 AM Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com
 wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

*and claims the system being measured is physically in
all eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.*



Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I
think agree that this is what happens if you describe
the couple “observer particle” by QM, i.e by the
quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum
mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible
collapse of the wave, which for me just means that QM
is false).


This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An
eigenstate is relative to some operator.  The system can
be in an eigenstate of an operator.  Ideal measurements
are projection operators that leave the system in an
eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are
rare in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in
Young's slit examples are destructive measurements.  You
can consider, as a mathematical convenience, using a
complete set of commuting operators to define a set of
eigenstates that will provide a basis...but remember
that it's just mathematics, a certain choice of basis. 
The system is always in just one state and the
mathematics says there is some operator for which that
is the eigenstate.  But in general we don't know what
that operator is and we have no way of physically
implementing it.

Brent


*I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system
in a superposition of states is in all component states
simultaneously, I am assuming the existence of an operator
with eigenstates that form a complete set and basis, that
the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that this
representation corresponds to the state of the system before
measurement. *


In general you need a set of operators to have the
eigenstates form a complete basis...but OK.


*I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum
superposition is that before measurement, the system is in
all eigenstates simultaneously, one of which represents the
system after measurement. I do allow for situations where we
write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates even if we
don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state
of a spin particle. In the case of the cat, using the
hypothesis of superposition I argue against, we have two
eigenstates, which if "occupied" by the system
simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead
simultaneously. AG *


Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize
that physically would require that the cat be perfectly
isolated and not even radiate IR photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball
experiment).  So it is in fact impossible to realize (which
is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).

*
CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed
the cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a
nano second. So, IMO, the problem with the interpretation of
superposition remains. *


Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying
takes at least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence
times.  So the cat is always in a /*classical*/ state between
|alive> and |dead>. These are never in superposition.


*It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly
short. *


Yes is does go away.  Even light can't travel the length of a cat
in a nano-second.



What if the cat is on Pluto for this one hour?  Would it not be 
perfectly isolated from us on Earth, and thus remain in a 
superposition until the the several hours it takes for light to get to 
Earth from Pluto reaches us?


?? Are you assuming that decoherence only occurs when humans (or 
Earthlings) observe the event?


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 mor

Re: Realizable quantum states

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/31/2018 9:22 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:15 AM Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 7/30/2018 9:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:21 PM Bruce Kellett
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:

From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:33 PM Bruce Kellett
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:

From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>


You can use "itself" only if this "it" can be in
multiple locations and heading in different directions.


That is a property of waves. But you will only ever
observe a single photon from this wave.


Waves/Photons, doesn't matter what you call them.

Within the quantum computer this wave/photon is
simultaneously in many different locations/doing many
different things, performing computations and doing useful
work using all of its separate superposed instances of
itself.  Once it's done doing all this work it settles down
on a final value which we can read. And it will be correct,
and may have finished an enormous computation in a short
period of time, if and only if, it did in fact split up and
do all these independent things simultaneously.


Or you can view the action of a quantum computer as a simple
interference effect. Incorrect solutions to the algorithm
destructively interfere. You don't have to introduce ideas
such as 'being in different locations and doing different
things.' It is just simple interference in a wave. (And it is
all in one world, because interference can only occur within
the one world.)



To add some clarity, I would say interference effects of a
superposed system can only be seen from the vantage point of
another system which has not interacted with that
superposed/interfering system.


I don't know what "seen from a vantage point" means, but you can't
see anything without interacting with it.





On that we agree.  But where did those other photons
come from? How did they get to be in different
positions going in different directions?


They aren't.


How do do you explain the experiment with beam splitters
and recombining light at a half silvered mirror to
interfere and only be reflected one way?


Photons have both wave-like and particle-like properties.
That is quantum physics.

So do you accept or reject that this "wave" can be in
different places simultaneously?


A wave is not a localized object, so the same wave can extend
to different locations.


So then "a photon is not a localized object, so the same photon
can extend to different locations." -- is this right or wrong?


Right.  But it's localized in in the same world if it interferes
with itself; and of course it is never spacelike separate from itself.


I don't understand that last part "it is never spacelike separate from 
itself", isn't that what beam splitters do, cause spacelike 
separations of a photon?


You're right.  I misspoke.  The wave representing the photon has 
spacelike separate parts.


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: Realizable quantum states

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/31/2018 9:19 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
What I was referring to with the "can only be seen" were the /effects/ 
of the interference, be they the final results of the quantum 
computation or the light and dark bands in the two slit experiment.


So by "effects" you mean classical effects...although I thought your 
world view denied the existence of the classical.



If you entangle yourself (measure/observe/interact with) the system in 
the superposition, then you yourself become part of that 
superposition, and no longer will see interference effects from that 
system.


Well, somebody had better see them, otherwise we won't get any papers 
published.


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?

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/31/2018 9:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 30 Jul 2018, at 22:27, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 7/30/2018 9:58 AM, John Clark wrote:


>
/Forget collapse./

Many, perhaps most, physicists do exactly that because they believe 
in the "Shut Up And Calculate" quantum interpretation and are only 
interested in predicting how far to the right a indicator needle on 
a meter moves in a particular experiment. But for some of us that 
feels unsatisfying and would like to have a deeper understanding 
about what's going on at the quantum level and wonder why there is 
nothing in the mathematics that says anything about a wave collapsing.




That's not true.  "The mathematics" originally included the Born rule 
as part of the axiomatic structure of QM.


In the usual QM, yes. But this use a vague notion of observer, and a 
seemingly forbidden process, a projection (a Kestrel!), I mean 
forbidden if we apply the wave to the couple observer-particle.






Most of all they want to know what exactly is a "measurement" and 
why it so mysterious.




The problem with the Born rule was that its application was ambiguous:


Ah! Exactly.



Where was the Heisenberg cut? Why was "the needle basis" preferred?  
But decoherence theory has given answers (at least partially) to 
those questions.  Given those answers, one can just replace 
"collapse" with "discard", i.e. discard all the predicted possible 
results except the one observed.  Is there really any difference 
between saying those other predictions of the wf are in orthogonal, 
inaccessible "worlds" and saying they just didn't happen.  That seems 
to be Omnes approach.  He writes, "Quantum mechanics is a 
probabilistic theory, so it only predicts probabilities.”



OK, but the honest, and perhaps naive inquirer would like to have an 
idea about what are those probabilities about, and where they come from.


That was the source of resistance to Born's paper.  Physicists assumed 
that probability could only arise from ignorance of an ensemble.  Since 
there was no ensemble in Heisenberg's (or Schroedinger's) QM they 
resisted the idea.  Lots of attempts were made to reintroduce ensembles, 
or at least virtual ensembles, so that they could feel comfortable with 
having a probabilistic theory.  Omnes' is just saying "Get over it!"; 
probabilities are fundamental.  Everett's MWI is appealing to the same 
intuition...that probabilities must refer to ensembles.  So the ensemble 
will be multiple-worlds.  But that didn't really work because 
Schroedinger's equation didn't predict multiple worlds with the right 
ratios, it just gave real number probabilities.  So people like Bohm and 
Bruno invented infinite ensembles to explain the probability numbers.  
Which is OK, but one should recognize that they are /*not */just 
explicating Schroedinger's equation.


Brent

Now, the computationalists expected exactly that kind of 
probabilities, on the computations, as the “step 3”, but mainly the 
“step 4”, i.e. the unawareness of the basic computation “time” (the 
number of steps in the universal dovetailing or the length of the 
proof of a sigma_1 sentence),


It is all in head of the universal machine!

The existence of the universal machine is assured by Robinson 
Arithmetic, or the combinator theory, as can been proved by all Löbian 
combinators.


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.


--
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 7/31/2018 6:43 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:11:18 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:



On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

*and claims the system being measured is physically in
all eigenstates simultaneously before measurement.*



Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I
think agree that this is what happens if you describe
the couple “observer particle” by QM, i.e by the
quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum
mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible
collapse of the wave, which for me just means that QM
is false).


This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An
eigenstate is relative to some operator.  The system can
be in an eigenstate of an operator.  Ideal measurements
are projection operators that leave the system in an
eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are
rare in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in
Young's slit examples are destructive measurements.  You
can consider, as a mathematical convenience, using a
complete set of commuting operators to define a set of
eigenstates that will provide a basis...but remember
that it's just mathematics, a certain choice of basis. 
The system is always in just one state and the
mathematics says there is some operator for which that
is the eigenstate. But in general we don't know what
that operator is and we have no way of physically
implementing it.

Brent


*I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system
in a superposition of states is in all component states
simultaneously, I am assuming the existence of an operator
with eigenstates that form a complete set and basis, that
the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that this
representation corresponds to the state of the system before
measurement. *


In general you need a set of operators to have the
eigenstates form a complete basis...but OK.


*I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum
superposition is that before measurement, the system is in
all eigenstates simultaneously, one of which represents the
system after measurement. I do allow for situations where we
write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates even if we
don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state
of a spin particle. In the case of the cat, using the
hypothesis of superposition I argue against, we have two
eigenstates, which if "occupied" by the system
simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead
simultaneously. AG *


Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize
that physically would require that the cat be perfectly
isolated and not even radiate IR photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball
experiment).  So it is in fact impossible to realize (which
is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).

*
CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed
the cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a
nano second. So, IMO, the problem with the interpretation of
superposition remains. *


Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying
takes at least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence
times.  So the cat is always in a /*classical*/ state between
|alive> and |dead>. These are never in superposition.

*

When you start your analysis /experiment using decoherence theory, 
don't you assume the cat is isolated from the environment? It must be 
if you say it later decoheres (even if later is only a nano second). 
Why is this not a problem if, as you say, it is impossible to isolate 
the cat? AG *


That it is impossible to isolate the cat is the source of the 
absurdity...not that it exists in a superposition later.





*It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly
short. *


Yes is does go away.  Even light can't travel the length of a cat
in a nano-second.


*And for this reason I still conclude that Schroedinger correctly
pointed out the fallacy in the standard interpretation of
superposition; namely, that the system represented by a
superposition, is in all components states simultaneously. AG
*


It's not a fallacy.  It just doesn't apply to the cat or other
macrosco

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 12:43 PM  wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 4:47:13 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:11 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



 On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> *and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates
> simultaneously before measurement.*
>
>
>
> Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree
> that this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” 
> by
> QM, i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum
> mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the
> wave, which for me just means that QM is false).
>
>
> This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is
> relative to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an
> operator.  Ideal measurements are projection operators that leave the
> system in an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare
> in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit examples 
> are
> destructive measurements.  You can consider, as a mathematical 
> convenience,
> using a complete set of commuting operators to define a set of eigenstates
> that will provide a basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a
> certain choice of basis.  The system is always in just one state and the
> mathematics says there is some operator for which that is the eigenstate.
> But in general we don't know what that operator is and we have no way of
> physically implementing it.
>
> Brent
>

 *I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a
 superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am
 assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a complete
 set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that
 this representation corresponds to the state of the system before
 measurement.  *


 In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a
 complete basis...but OK.

 *I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition
 is that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates
 simultaneously, one of which represents the system after measurement. I do
 allow for situations where we write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates
 even if we don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a
 spin particle. In the case of the cat, using the hypothesis of
 superposition I argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if "occupied"
 by the system simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead
 simultaneously. AG *


 Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that
 physically would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even
 radiate IR photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact
 impossible to realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).

>>>
>>> * CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the
>>> cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. So,
>>> IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains. *
>>>
>>>
>>> Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying takes at
>>> least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times.  So the cat
>>> is always in a *classical* state between |alive> and |dead>. These are
>>> never in superposition.
>>>
>>> *It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly short. *
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes is does go away.  Even light can't travel the length of a cat in a
>>> nano-second.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What if the cat is on Pluto for this one hour?  Would it not be perfectly
>> isolated from us on Earth, and thus remain in a superposition until the the
>> several hours it takes for light to get to Earth from Pluto reaches us?
>>
>> Jason
>>
>
> *In principle, superposition represents a system prior to measurement.
> Nothing to do with when light reaches the Earth; depends on when the
> measurement occurs. AG*
>
>
>
Superposition is relative.  As the case of Wigner's friend shows.  For
someone on Pluto, the cat in the box may have already died or remained
alive, relatively to him. But the superposition can remain for us on Earth,
for several hours, because that system remains perfectly isolated from us.
(This is what the idealization of the steel box was meant to achieve in the
thought experiment--perfect environmental isolation).  Brent c

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 12:15 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Jason Resch 
> wrote:
>
> >>
>>> I was simplifying things to get to the essential difference between a
>>> communication and a influence and you're just changing one apparently
>>> random sequence to a different apparently random sequence and the only way
>>> to tell that something funney is going on is when the two results are
>>> checked sinde by side which can only be done at the speed of light or less.
>>> But if you want exact then substitute the coins for 2 streams of 100 spin
>>> correlated electrons created midway between Andromeda and Earth and replace
>>> the coin flips for 2 Stern Gerlach magnets oriented the same way.
>>>
>>
>> *>So then the pairs are carrying their correlations with them at c,
>> completely locally and sub FTL, from the midpoint between them.*
>>
>
> Yes but the correlation between the angle I set my Stern Gerlach magnet to
> and the angle you set yours to is NOT local and is sent much faster than
> light, probably instantaneously. Regardless of the angle I set my magnet to
> there is a 50% chance the electron will make it through, if I pick a number
> at random, X, and set my magnet to it and the electron goes through and you
> also pick a number at random, Y, and set your magnet to it then the
> probability your electron will make it through your filter is
>   [COS (x-Y)]^2. For example if the angle of your magnet is 30 degrees
> different from mine the value of  the expression is  .75,   so there is a
> 75% probability your electron will make it through your magnet, and if you
> happen to set it at the same angle I did there is a 100% chance your
> electron will make it through and if the angle difference is 90 degrees
> there is a 0% chance. Somehow your electron knew what angle I randomly set
> my magnet to much faster than light because until we check results side by
> side (which can only be done at the speed of light or less) both records of
> electron that passes through and failed to look completely random, but its
> certainly weird.
>

The above is a little confused as it seems to mix the concepts of spin vs.
polarization angle, but ignoring that and using photon polarization I agree
with the statistics given above.

However, if you replace "John" with large numbers of Johns, "Jason" with
large numbers of Jasons, and photons with "large numbers of correlated
photons", then there is no need for spooky action at a distance.  Any
particular measurement of any particular correlated photon, by any
particular Jason or John, can be explained without resorting to
instantaneous spooky actions at a distance.  The large numbers of
correlated photons have each proto-measured their counter part.  Measuring
one entangles you with that particular photon, and tells you you are in the
branch where that correlated photon had a partner with an opposite
polarization angle.  Then you should expect when you hear from the Jason
who measured that counterpart, I will report statistics in line with your
expectations.  But there is no single Jason or single measurement result,
all of them happen.

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.

On natural selection of the laws of nature, Occam's razor and The Simplest Model

[Peter Zagubisalo]

Greetings,

I seek advice or any other help available regarding creating a specific 
mathematical model. It’s origin is at the intersection of the following 
areas:

   - fundamental physics (a bit),
   - the theory of evolution (a lot),
   - metaphysics (a lot),
   - foundations of mathematics (should be a lot).
   
The problem I’m trying to solve can be described as to *create the simplest 
model possible in which the evolution of the laws of nature arises from the 
natural selection of structures*. This approach implies indeterminism and 
postulates random and spontaneous nature of some events. It is also assumed 
that the universe had the beginning (the first moment of existence). This 
task is meant to provide the tychism doctrine by Charles Peirce with a 
mathematically accurate dynamic model.

There is the article with complete description of the research problem: 
https://kiwi0fruit.github.io/ultimate-question/ 

GitHub repository of the article: 
https://github.com/kiwi0fruit/ultimate-question

-- 
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?

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 4:47:13 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:11 AM Brent Meeker  > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 



 On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 *and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates 
 simultaneously before measurement.*



 Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree 
 that this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” 
 by 
 QM, i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum 
 mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the 
 wave, which for me just means that QM is false). 


 This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is 
 relative to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an 
 operator.  Ideal measurements are projection operators that leave the 
 system in an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare 
 in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit examples 
 are 
 destructive measurements.  You can consider, as a mathematical 
 convenience, 
 using a complete set of commuting operators to define a set of eigenstates 
 that will provide a basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a 
 certain choice of basis.  The system is always in just one state and the 
 mathematics says there is some operator for which that is the eigenstate.  
 But in general we don't know what that operator is and we have no way of 
 physically implementing it.

 Brent

>>>
>>> *I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a 
>>> superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am 
>>> assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a complete 
>>> set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that 
>>> this representation corresponds to the state of the system before 
>>> measurement.  *
>>>
>>>
>>> In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a 
>>> complete basis...but OK.
>>>
>>> *I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition 
>>> is that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates 
>>> simultaneously, one of which represents the system after measurement. I do 
>>> allow for situations where we write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates 
>>> even if we don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a 
>>> spin particle. In the case of the cat, using the hypothesis of 
>>> superposition I argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if "occupied" 
>>> by the system simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead 
>>> simultaneously. AG *
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that 
>>> physically would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even 
>>> radiate IR photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact 
>>> impossible to realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).
>>>
>>
>> * CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the 
>> cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. So, 
>> IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains. *
>>
>>
>> Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying takes at 
>> least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times.  So the cat 
>> is always in a *classical* state between |alive> and |dead>. These are 
>> never in superposition. 
>>
>> *It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly short. *
>>
>>
>> Yes is does go away.  Even light can't travel the length of a cat in a 
>> nano-second.  
>>
>>
>
> What if the cat is on Pluto for this one hour?  Would it not be perfectly 
> isolated from us on Earth, and thus remain in a superposition until the the 
> several hours it takes for light to get to Earth from Pluto reaches us?
>
> Jason
>

*In principle, superposition represents a system prior to measurement. 
Nothing to do with when light reaches the Earth; depends on when the 
measurement occurs. 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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 31 Jul 2018, at 06:21, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates 
 simultaneously before measurement.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree that 
>>> this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” by QM, 
>>> i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum 
>>> mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the 
>>> wave, which for me just means that QM is false). 
>> 
>> This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is relative 
>> to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an operator.  Ideal 
>> measurements are projection operators that leave the system in an eigenstate 
>> of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare in QM.  All the 
>> measurements you're discussing in Young's slit examples are destructive 
>> measurements.  You can consider, as a mathematical convenience, using a 
>> complete set of commuting operators to define a set of eigenstates that will 
>> provide a basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a certain choice 
>> of basis.  The system is always in just one state and the mathematics says 
>> there is some operator for which that is the eigenstate.  But in general we 
>> don't know what that operator is and we have no way of physically 
>> implementing it.
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a 
>> superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am 
>> assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a complete 
>> set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that 
>> this representation corresponds to the state of the system before 
>> measurement. 
> 
> In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a 
> complete basis...but OK.
> 
>> I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition is 
>> that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates simultaneously, 
>> one of which represents the system after measurement. I do allow for 
>> situations where we write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates even if we 
>> don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a spin 
>> particle. In the case of the cat, using the hypothesis of superposition I 
>> argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if "occupied" by the system 
>> simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead simultaneously. AG 
> 
> Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that physically 
> would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even radiate IR 
> photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact impossible to 
> realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).
> 
> CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the cat is 
> initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second.

But decoherence is only entanglement with the environment. The cat decoder 
relatively to the observer, but that is exactly what the SWE describes. The 
superposed state of the cat just get very quickly contagious to the environment 
and then the observer, which reports decoherence or collapse according to its 
philosophy. Decoherence is the best explanation why we don’t feel the 
split/differentiation.



> So, IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains.

Certainly, if you postulate a unique well defined physical reality. 



> It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly short. And for 
> this reason I still conclude that Schroedinger correctly pointed out the 
> fallacy in the standard interpretation of superposition; namely, that the 
> system represented by a superposition, is in all components states 
> simultaneously. AG 


Without that simultaneity there would be no interference, which we observe in 
all case. Give me a two state system u and d, u will be equal to u’ + d”, and d 
will be equal to u’ - d’. A qubit is only a bit that we can rotate in the 
hilbert space. A qu-register is only a register of qubit, and we can put it in 
the state

(u’+d')(u’+d')(u’+d') ... (u’+d’), making the full register of length n 
containing the superposition of all sequence of bit, when seen or considered in 
the u and d base. We can test if the result of 2^n computations, get the same 
results or not, for example, by NOT observing each bit in the u/d base, but 
instead making such result interfering in another base, and then measuring 
them. 

If someone can explain me Shor quantum algorithm for factoring number, even a 
small number as 15 (this has been done experimentally) without a physical 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 31 Jul 2018, at 04:05, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Jason Resch  > wrote:
> 
> >>You and I have quantum entangled coins, I'm on Earth and you're in the 
> >>Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away.  I flip my coin 100 times and 
> >>record my sequences of heads and tails and then just one hour later you do 
> >>the same thing.
> 
> >It doesn't work like that. You need to generate the coins at one location, 
> >then bring them separately (at sub C speeds) from the location they were 
> >created to Earth and Andromeda.  It's because of this that FTL is not not 
> >needed under QM to explain EPR.  If it worked as you said then it would 
> >require FTL.  But you can't keep flipping the same coin.
> 
> 
> I was simplifying things to get to the essential difference between a 
> communication and a influence and you're just changing one apparently random 
> sequence to a different apparently random sequence and the only way to tell 
> that something funney is going on is when the two results are checked sinde 
> by side which can only be done at the speed of light or less. But if you want 
> exact then substitute the coins for 2 streams of 100 spin correlated 
> electrons created midway between Andromeda and Earth and replace the coin 
> flips for 2 Stern Gerlach magnets oriented the same way.


If Alice and Bob are space-separated, and that they have not yet measure 
anything, how could they know (first person) that they are in the same branch? 
How do you make sense on this if only locally? There is an infinity of Bob and 
Alice, and all what they both know is that they share some historical reality 
with a relative partner, so that their simps are correlated, but they are are 
ignorant and thus distributed on infinitely many histories, with all the 
correlation between different spin “angle” (assuming a fixed base to describe 
them).
I might be wrong, but the violation of Bell’s inequality (or Kochen-Specker 
theorem) does not entail any physical instantaneous action at a distance. I 
have seen may attempt to prove this, but they always favour a branch in a way 
or another, forgetting the probabilities bear on different portioning of the 
multiverse in the big picture. 

It makes the whole physics becoming covariant, despite necessary relative local 
appearance of what seem to be an action at a distance. There are none, but to 
show this, we must take into account the fact that Alice and Bob find all 
correlated results in all directions.

Bruno



> 
> 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: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:

>>
>> I was simplifying things to get to the essential difference between a
>> communication and a influence and you're just changing one apparently
>> random sequence to a different apparently random sequence and the only way
>> to tell that something funney is going on is when the two results are
>> checked sinde by side which can only be done at the speed of light or less.
>> But if you want exact then substitute the coins for 2 streams of 100 spin
>> correlated electrons created midway between Andromeda and Earth and replace
>> the coin flips for 2 Stern Gerlach magnets oriented the same way.
>>
>
> *>So then the pairs are carrying their correlations with them at c,
> completely locally and sub FTL, from the midpoint between them.*
>

Yes but the correlation between the angle I set my Stern Gerlach magnet to
and the angle you set yours to is NOT local and is sent much faster than
light, probably instantaneously. Regardless of the angle I set my magnet to
there is a 50% chance the electron will make it through, if I pick a number
at random, X, and set my magnet to it and the electron goes through and you
also pick a number at random, Y, and set your magnet to it then the
probability your electron will make it through your filter is
  [COS (x-Y)]^2. For example if the angle of your magnet is 30 degrees
different from mine the value of  the expression is  .75,   so there is a
75% probability your electron will make it through your magnet, and if you
happen to set it at the same angle I did there is a 100% chance your
electron will make it through and if the angle difference is 90 degrees
there is a 0% chance. Somehow your electron knew what angle I randomly set
my magnet to much faster than light because until we check results side by
side (which can only be done at the speed of light or less) both records of
electron that passes through and failed to look completely random, but its
certainly weird.

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.

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 31 Jul 2018, at 03:39, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:57 PM John Clark > > wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:11 PM, smitra > > wrote:
>> 
>> > A concept of "influence" without any information transfer is ambiguous. 
>> > The meaning of this "influence" will be dependent on the particular 
>> > interpretation used, it has no operational meaning.
>> 
>> Communicating is not the same as influencing, communicating means 
>> transferring Shannon style information and entanglement can't do that faster 
>> than light. But it will still let you influence things faster than light. 
>> Quantum entanglement can influence things faster than light but you need 
>> more than that to transmit information, you need a standard to measure that 
>> change against, and Quantum Mechanics can't provide that standard; all it 
>> can do is change one apparently random state to another apparently random 
>> state.  
>> 
>> You and I have quantum entangled coins, I'm on Earth and you're in the 
>> Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away.  I flip my coin 100 times and 
>> record my sequences of heads and tails and then just one hour later you do 
>> the same thing.
>> 
>> It doesn't work like that. You need to generate the coins at one location, 
>> then bring them separately (at sub C speeds) from the 
>> location they were created to Earth and Andromeda.  It's because of this 
>> that FTL is not not needed under QM to explain EPR.
> 
> Bell's theorem rules out this "common cause" explanation. Such an explanation 
> would be a local hidden variable account, and that is ruled out. Claiming 
> that Bell's theorem doesn't apply to many-worlds doesn't work either. I think 
> that any "common cause" explanation would have to contend with the 
> Kochen-Specker theorem -- which also rules out any such hidden variables.


Bell, and Kochen-Specker rule out basically all hidden variable theory, or make 
them non local. But when we abandon the collapse, or any singularisation of a 
reality through measurement/interaction, I don’t see how such result would 
entai action at a distance. If you have references I am interested. 

Bruno



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

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

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 31 Jul 2018, at 02:57, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/30/2018 4:11 PM, John Clark wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Brent Meeker > > wrote:
>> 
>> >> Many, perhaps most, physicists do exactly that because they believe in 
>> >> the "Shut Up And Calculate" quantum interpretation and are only 
>> >> interested in predicting how far to the right a indicator needle on a 
>> >> meter moves in a particular experiment. But for some of us that feels 
>> >> unsatisfying and would like to have a deeper understanding about what's 
>> >> going on at the quantum level and wonder why there is nothing in the 
>> >> mathematics that says anything about a wave collapsing. 
>> 
>> > That's not true.  "The mathematics" originally included the Born rule as 
>> > part of the axiomatic structure of QM.  
>> 
>> 
>>  A axiom is supposed to be simple and self evidently true, the Born rule is 
>> neither; and it wasn't derived from first principles
> 
> ??  You think matix mechanics was "derived from first principles"??  What 
> "first principles"?  Have you gone platonic on us?
> 
>> it was picked for reasons that were were empirical and practical, for some 
>> strange reason the damn thing works.
> 
> Well, maybe it works because the Born rule is the only consistent way to put 
> a probability measure on Hilbert space.  Born just inuitited the rule (and 
> actually got it wrong and corrected it in a footnote); but Gleason proved it 
> in 1957.  So the Born rule comes a lot closer to being "derived from first 
> principles" than does Schroedinger's equation or matrix mechanics. 


Yes. But we can suspect that Everett needs a form of mechanism, and with Church 
thesis, along with “yes doctor” that makes mandatory to derive matrix mechanics 
from first principle, like the FPI perhaps, and certainly something like at 
least one universal machinery, like elementary arithmetic or the combinators.



> 
> The catch is that Born had assume a probability interpretation; which nobody 
> liked at the time because they could only think of probability as ignorance 
> about ensembles and there were no ensembles...until Dewitt.

I like very much Dewitt, but Dewitt is the one who better understood Everett 
(after mocking him if I remember well).



> 
>> Also, the square of the absolute value of the complex wave produces a 
>> probability which collapses into a certainty when a observation is made, but 
>> the mathematics can't say when that happens because it doesn't say what a 
>> observation is.
> 
> Mathematics never includes the interpretation that allows you to apply it.  

That is wrong. Indeed Gödel’s incompleteness is already a case where 
mathematics includes interpretations of mathematical theories (set of beliefs). 
Like Everett embeds the physicists in physics, mathematical logic embeds the 
mathematician in mathematics, and if mechanism is correct, there is not much 
choice left in the matter.

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?

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:11 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> *and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates
>>> simultaneously before measurement.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree that
>>> this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” by QM,
>>> i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum
>>> mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the
>>> wave, which for me just means that QM is false).
>>>
>>>
>>> This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is
>>> relative to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an
>>> operator.  Ideal measurements are projection operators that leave the
>>> system in an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare
>>> in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit examples are
>>> destructive measurements.  You can consider, as a mathematical convenience,
>>> using a complete set of commuting operators to define a set of eigenstates
>>> that will provide a basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a
>>> certain choice of basis.  The system is always in just one state and the
>>> mathematics says there is some operator for which that is the eigenstate.
>>> But in general we don't know what that operator is and we have no way of
>>> physically implementing it.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> *I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a
>> superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am
>> assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a complete
>> set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that
>> this representation corresponds to the state of the system before
>> measurement.  *
>>
>>
>> In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a
>> complete basis...but OK.
>>
>> *I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition is
>> that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates simultaneously,
>> one of which represents the system after measurement. I do allow for
>> situations where we write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates even if
>> we don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a spin
>> particle. In the case of the cat, using the hypothesis of superposition I
>> argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if "occupied" by the system
>> simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead simultaneously. AG *
>>
>>
>> Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that
>> physically would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even
>> radiate IR photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact
>> impossible to realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).
>>
>
> * CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the
> cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. So,
> IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains. *
>
>
> Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying takes at
> least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times.  So the cat
> is always in a *classical* state between |alive> and |dead>. These are
> never in superposition.
>
> *It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly short. *
>
>
> Yes is does go away.  Even light can't travel the length of a cat in a
> nano-second.
>
>

What if the cat is on Pluto for this one hour?  Would it not be perfectly
isolated from us on Earth, and thus remain in a superposition until the the
several hours it takes for light to get to Earth from Pluto reaches us?

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?

[Jason Resch]

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:04 PM Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> From: Jason Resch 
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:39 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
>> From: Jason Resch 
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:57 PM John Clark  wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:11 PM, smitra  wrote:
>>>
>>>
 * > A concept of "influence" without any information transfer is
 ambiguous. The meaning of this "influence" will be dependent on the
 particular interpretation used, it has no operational meaning. *
>>>
>>>
>>> Communicating is not the same as influencing, communicating means
>>> transferring Shannon style information and entanglement can't do that
>>> faster than light. But it will still let you influence things faster than
>>> light. Quantum entanglement can influence things faster than light but you
>>> need more than that to transmit information, you need a standard to measure
>>> that change against, and Quantum Mechanics can't provide that standard; all
>>> it can do is change one apparently random state to another apparently
>>> random state.
>>>
>>> You and I have quantum entangled coins, I'm on Earth and you're in the
>>> Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away.  I flip my coin 100 times
>>> and record my sequences of heads and tails and then just one hour later you
>>> do the same thing.
>>>
>>
>> It doesn't work like that. You need to generate the coins at one
>> location, then bring them separately (at sub C speeds) from the location
>> they were created to Earth and Andromeda.  It's because of this that FTL is
>> not not needed under QM to explain EPR.
>>
>>
>> Bell's theorem rules out this "common cause" explanation. Such an
>> explanation would be a local hidden variable account, and that is ruled
>> out. Claiming that Bell's theorem doesn't apply to many-worlds doesn't work
>> either. I think that any "common cause" explanation would have to contend
>> with the Kochen-Specker theorem -- which also rules out any such hidden
>> variables.
>>
>
> Do Kochen and Specker assume counterfactual definiteness? Bell did, which
> is why his theorem does not apply to many-worlds.
>
>
> No, completely wrong. Bell does not assume counterfactual definiteness.
> See Maudlin: "What Bell proved: A Reply to Baylock", Am. J. Phys. 78, 121
> (2010).
>

There is another reply by Robert B. Griffiths "EPR, Bell, and quantum
locality" ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.4281.pdf ) which says that Mauldin
was wrong in his reply to Baylock. Who to believe?

"An important lesson to be drawn from all of this is the need for a clear
presentation of consistent principles of quantum reasoning in textbooks and
courses. When teaching courses on quantum information I always stress the
fact that there are no nonlocal influences in quantum theory, and point out
that this principle is useful to keep in mind when analyzing quantum
circuits. Unfortunately, physics students trained in traditional quantum
courses have difficulty replacing, or at least augmenting, the
calculational rules they learned by rote with a consistent probabilistic
analysis of what is going on. They may already have learned that the
superluminal influences reflected in violations of Bell’s inequality cannot
be used to transmit information. But they also need to hear a simple
explanation for why this is so: such influences do not exist."



> Neither, of course, do Kochen and Specker. Their proof is entirely logical
> and depends on the properties of non-commuting operators. Bell proved
> something similar in his 1966 paper on the problem of hidden variables.
>
> Deflecting Bell's theorem does not actually help in giving a local account
> of EPR-type correlations. Bell inequalities can be proved without ever
> referring to quantum mechanics -- they depend only on the assumption of
> locality. Experiment shows that these inequalities are violated.
>

Bell's reasoning also makes use of implicit assumptions about definite
results for unmeasured things. This is not valid in QM.

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 31 Jul 2018, at 01:51, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: John Clark mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>>
>> 
>> Einstein didn't say nothing can move faster than light, he only said matter 
>> and energy and information can't. Thanks to recent experiments with Bell's 
>> Inequality we already have rock solid evidence that quantum influences (but 
>> not information) can move much faster than light and are consistent with 
>> being instantaneous .
>> 
>> John K Clark
> 
> I am glad that someone else on this list actually understand the implications 
> of Bell's theorem. In fact, it is not even Bell's theorem that is important 
> here -- it is the experimental confirmation of the existence of correlations 
> between space-like separated events that shows that instantaneous 
> influence-at-a-distance exists.

You contradict one of your preview post. I take the violation of Bell’s 
inequality as an evidence that we belong ourself to superposition. That follows 
from the axiom: no instantaneous *physical* actions at a distance. Without 
collapse, all interactions are local and propagate at reasonable speed.




> Bell ruled out any local hidden variable explanation,


Yes, but he assumes a unique physical reality, as he acknowledge in his critics 
of Everett, or in his Bohm-like interpretation of Everett, which is indeed 
non-local in the strong sense (*physical* instantaneity). 



> but we could have non-local hidden variables (Bohm). These, if material, 
> would be FTL, but one does not need to go down this path, and there is no 
> evidence for it.


We don’t need to on that path indeed. The *appearance* of the action at a 
distance is given in a local and deterministic way by the evolution of the 
universal wave (or just the wave great enough to contains the observers and 
some part of their light cones).

Bruno



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

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

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 31 Jul 2018, at 01:33, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 2:33 PM,  > wrote:
> 
> > the wf has infinite extent (as does the probability density). This would 
> > imply INSTANTANEOUS propagation when the wf is created -- much worse than 
> > FTL!
> 
> Einstein didn't say nothing can move faster than light, he only said matter 
> and energy and information can't. Thanks to recent experiments with Bell's 
> Inequality we already have rock solid evidence that quantum influences (but 
> not information) can move much faster than light and are consistent with 
> being instantaneous.


That is the point where we disagree. With the many worlds, there is no more 
instantaneous influences at a distance.  Exactly like the SWE, and some 
hypothesis that the observer is some machine using some orthogonal vectors to 
get stable memories (a form of mechanism), explains the appearance of 
indeterminacy is a deterministic manner, it explains, up to now, the appearance 
of non-locality, without any spooky influence at a distance. That was the point 
of many discussion with Bruce, but he seems to agree that there is no FTL, 
still less instantaneous physical influence. That’s why in Quantum Cosmology, 
there is no collapse conceivable. Only the collapse make the instantaneousness 
physically real. And without collapse, the theory (the wave) predicts that in 
most branches, the Bell inequality will be violated, but nowhere you will see 
anything “physical” , still less “informational”, influencing instantaneously 
anything.
God does not play dice, and there is no spooky action at a distance, if QM is 
correct. (QM without collapse to be sure).

Bruno





> 
> 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: Realizable quantum states

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:15 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 7/30/2018 9:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:21 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
>> From: Jason Resch 
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:33 PM Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> From: Jason Resch 
>>>
>>>
>>> You can use "itself" only if this "it" can be in multiple locations and
>>> heading in different directions.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is a property of waves. But you will only ever observe a single
>>> photon from this wave.
>>>
>>
>> Waves/Photons, doesn't matter what you call them.
>>
>> Within the quantum computer this wave/photon is simultaneously in many
>> different locations/doing many different things, performing computations
>> and doing useful work using all of its separate superposed instances of
>> itself.  Once it's done doing all this work it settles down on a final
>> value which we can read.  And it will be correct, and may have finished an
>> enormous computation in a short period of time, if and only if, it did in
>> fact split up and do all these independent things simultaneously.
>>
>>
>> Or you can view the action of a quantum computer as a simple interference
>> effect. Incorrect solutions to the algorithm destructively interfere. You
>> don't have to introduce ideas such as 'being in different locations and
>> doing different things.' It is just simple interference in a wave. (And it
>> is all in one world, because interference can only occur within the one
>> world.)
>>
>>
>>
> To add some clarity, I would say interference effects of a superposed
> system can only be seen from the vantage point of another system which has
> not interacted with that superposed/interfering system.
>
>
> I don't know what "seen from a vantage point" means, but you can't see
> anything without interacting with it.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> On that we agree.  But where did those other photons come from? How did
>>> they get to be in different positions going in different directions?
>>>
>>>
>>> They aren't.
>>>
>>
>> How do do you explain the experiment with beam splitters and recombining
>> light at a half silvered mirror to interfere and only be reflected one way?
>>
>>
>> Photons have both wave-like and particle-like properties. That is quantum
>> physics.
>>
>> So do you accept or reject that this "wave" can be in different places
>> simultaneously?
>>
>>
>> A wave is not a localized object, so the same wave can extend to
>> different locations.
>>
>
> So then "a photon is not a localized object, so the same photon can extend
> to different locations." -- is this right or wrong?
>
>
> Right.  But it's localized in in the same world if it interferes with
> itself; and of course it is never spacelike separate from itself.
>

I don't understand that last part "it is never spacelike separate from
itself", isn't that what beam splitters do, cause spacelike separations of
a photon?

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: Realizable quantum states

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 12:01 AM Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> From: Jason Resch 
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:21 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
>> From: Jason Resch 
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:33 PM Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> From: Jason Resch 
>>>
>>>
>>> You can use "itself" only if this "it" can be in multiple locations and
>>> heading in different directions.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is a property of waves. But you will only ever observe a single
>>> photon from this wave.
>>>
>>
>> Waves/Photons, doesn't matter what you call them.
>>
>> Within the quantum computer this wave/photon is simultaneously in many
>> different locations/doing many different things, performing computations
>> and doing useful work using all of its separate superposed instances of
>> itself.  Once it's done doing all this work it settles down on a final
>> value which we can read.  And it will be correct, and may have finished an
>> enormous computation in a short period of time, if and only if, it did in
>> fact split up and do all these independent things simultaneously.
>>
>>
>> Or you can view the action of a quantum computer as a simple interference
>> effect. Incorrect solutions to the algorithm destructively interfere. You
>> don't have to introduce ideas such as 'being in different locations and
>> doing different things.' It is just simple interference in a wave. (And it
>> is all in one world, because interference can only occur within the one
>> world.)
>>
>>
>>
> To add some clarity, I would say interference effects of a superposed
> system can only be seen from the vantage point of another system which has
> not interacted with that superposed/interfering system.
>
>
> Hmmm! I'm not sure what you mean here. Certainly, the interference from
> the two-slit set up is only observable when the photons interact with a
> screen. I am not an expert in quantum computers, but I understand that the
> output from the computation is generally read off from a set of qubits that
> are separate from, but interact with the qubits that are actually used for
> the computation. Is that what you mean?
>

I think it depends on the computation. It may be for practical reasons that
separate qubits are used to store the output, but I don't see any
conceptual reason why they would need to.  It is difficult enough a problem
to scale a QC with more qubits that I would assume it is more practical to
reuse any qubit whenever the computation allows it to be reused.


> In general, though, observing something means interacting with it.
>
>
What I was referring to with the "can only be seen" were the *effects* of
the interference, be they the final results of the quantum computation or
the light and dark bands in the two slit experiment.
If you entangle yourself (measure/observe/interact with) the system in the
superposition, then you yourself become part of that superposition, and no
longer will see interference effects from that system.


>
> On that we agree.  But where did those other photons come from? How did
>> they get to be in different positions going in different directions?
>>
>>
>> They aren't.
>>
>
> How do do you explain the experiment with beam splitters and recombining
> light at a half silvered mirror to interfere and only be reflected one way?
>
>
> Photons have both wave-like and particle-like properties. That is quantum
> physics.
>
> So do you accept or reject that this "wave" can be in different places
> simultaneously?
>
>
> A wave is not a localized object, so the same wave can extend to different
> locations.
>
> So then "a photon is not a localized object, so the same photon can extend
> to different locations." -- is this right or wrong?
>
>
> A photon is what causes a localized spot on a screen. A wave is what
> interferes with itself. If you want to equivocate on the meanings of words,
> you can say that a photon is extended. But I prefer to keep the terms
> distinct, and apply them as appropriate in different contexts.
>

But really there is only a photon here.  There is not a wave that is
separate from the photon.  When a photon strikes a semisilvered mirror and
splits along two paths, do you say the wave is created at that point? It
seems more natural to me to simply say the photon was split by the splitter.

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 30 Jul 2018, at 22:27, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/30/2018 9:58 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>   > Forget collapse.
>> Many, perhaps most, physicists do exactly that because they believe in the 
>> "Shut Up And Calculate" quantum interpretation and are only interested in 
>> predicting how far to the right a indicator needle on a meter moves in a 
>> particular experiment. But for some of us that feels unsatisfying and would 
>> like to have a deeper understanding about what's going on at the quantum 
>> level and wonder why there is nothing in the mathematics that says anything 
>> about a wave collapsing. 
>> 
> 
> That's not true.  "The mathematics" originally included the Born rule as part 
> of the axiomatic structure of QM.  

In the usual QM, yes. But this use a vague notion of observer, and a seemingly 
forbidden process, a projection (a Kestrel!), I mean forbidden if we apply the 
wave to the couple observer-particle.



> 
>> Most of all they want to know what exactly is a "measurement" and why it so 
>> mysterious. 
>> 
> 
> The problem with the Born rule was that its application was ambiguous:

Ah! Exactly.



> Where was the Heisenberg cut? Why was "the needle basis" preferred?  But 
> decoherence theory has given answers (at least partially) to those questions. 
>  Given those answers, one can just replace "collapse" with "discard", i.e. 
> discard all the predicted possible results except the one observed.  Is there 
> really any difference between saying those other predictions of the wf are in 
> orthogonal, inaccessible "worlds" and saying they just didn't happen.  That 
> seems to be Omnes approach.  He writes, "Quantum mechanics is a probabilistic 
> theory, so it only predicts probabilities.”


OK, but the honest, and perhaps naive inquirer would like to have an idea about 
what are those probabilities about, and where they come from. Now, the 
computationalists expected exactly that kind of probabilities, on the 
computations, as the “step 3”, but mainly the “step 4”, i.e. the unawareness of 
the basic computation “time” (the number of steps in the universal dovetailing 
or the length of the proof of a sigma_1 sentence), 

It is all in head of the universal machine!

The existence of the universal machine is assured by Robinson Arithmetic, or 
the combinator theory, as can been proved by all Löbian combinators.

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: Realizable quantum states

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 31 Jul 2018, at 07:56, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/30/2018 9:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> You might be referring to my comments. I didn't exactly say that the wf 
>> isn't real. I was focused on the superposition being wrongly interpreted, 
>> and IMO this is what Schroedinger showed with his cat experiment. I then 
>> concluded that superposition, and hence the wf which is described by a 
>> superposition, contains information only. Whether this qualifies for "real" 
>> depends on what "real" means. But if the wf contains information only, I 
>> suppose we can say it is real in some sense even though no one has seen one! 
>> AG 
>> 
>> 
>> Well the wave function contains you, me, Earth, etc. So in a sense 
>> everything we see exists in some part of the wave function.  No one can see 
>> it, but no one can see a universe either.
>> 
> 
> But I can see part of a universe.

Yes, and today, we can see part of the multiverse, in the sense of detecting 
indirectly its relative existence, which is not different than inferring quarks 
or the dark side of the moon.

Anyway, “seeing” makes sense as a criterion of reality only in Aristotle 
metaphysics, which is inconsistent with Descartes Mechanism (plausibly, and 
provably so for its digital version), and I would say QM collapse confirms all 
this. 

With mechanism, the (interesting) problem is that we cannot “localise” ourself 
in infinitely many sigma_1 true number relations (computations). But the 
constraints of self-referential correctness solves apparently that problem. 
That notion relies on Truth, and it explains why we cannot effectively define 
the arithmetical truth, unless postulating some less clear bigger notion of 
truth (we can define arithmetical truth in Analysis or in Set Theory, but the 
notion of analytical truth is more dubious and hard to define than the 
arithmetical truth.

I might illustrate all this with the combinators, and show that all Löbian 
combinators arrives at the same conclusion: if mechanism is true, the 
observable obeys the laws of the material hypostases, which define an abstract 
measure on all sigma_1 sentences (the leaves of the universal dovetailer).

Plato might be wrong or right, and the point is that this is testable. If the 
natural world was Aristoteliano-Newtonian, I would think that digital mechanism 
is not really plausible, or that our substitution level is so low that even the 
quarks behave classically and that we have just not yet discover the trace of 
the many-computations (which are realised in a tiny segment of the arithmetical 
truth or reality).

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?

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 6:11:18 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> *and claims the system being measured is physically in all eigenstates 
>>> simultaneously before measurement.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree that 
>>> this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer particle” by QM, 
>>> i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of elementary quantum 
>>> mechanics (unless of course you add the unintelligible collapse of the 
>>> wave, which for me just means that QM is false). 
>>>
>>>
>>> This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused.  An eigenstate is 
>>> relative to some operator.  The system can be in an eigenstate of an 
>>> operator.  Ideal measurements are projection operators that leave the 
>>> system in an eigenstate of that operator.  But ideal measurements are rare 
>>> in QM.  All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit examples are 
>>> destructive measurements.  You can consider, as a mathematical convenience, 
>>> using a complete set of commuting operators to define a set of eigenstates 
>>> that will provide a basis...but remember that it's just mathematics, a 
>>> certain choice of basis.  The system is always in just one state and the 
>>> mathematics says there is some operator for which that is the eigenstate.  
>>> But in general we don't know what that operator is and we have no way of 
>>> physically implementing it.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> *I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a 
>> superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I am 
>> assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a complete 
>> set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this basis, and that 
>> this representation corresponds to the state of the system before 
>> measurement.  *
>>
>>
>> In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a 
>> complete basis...but OK.
>>
>> *I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition is 
>> that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates simultaneously, 
>> one of which represents the system after measurement. I do allow for 
>> situations where we write a superposition as a sum of eigenstates even if 
>> we don't know what the operator is, such as the Up + Dn state of a spin 
>> particle. In the case of the cat, using the hypothesis of superposition I 
>> argue against, we have two eigenstates, which if "occupied" by the system 
>> simultaneously, implies the cat is alive and dead simultaneously. AG *
>>
>>
>> Yes, you can write down the math for that.  But to realize that 
>> physically would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not even 
>> radiate IR photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment).  So it is in fact 
>> impossible to realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if absurd).
>>
>
> * CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the 
> cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. So, 
> IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains. *
>
>
> Why is that problematic?  You must realize that the cat dying takes at 
> least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times.  So the cat 
> is always in a *classical* state between |alive> and |dead>. These are 
> never in superposition. 
>


*When you start your analysis /experiment using decoherence theory, don't 
you assume the cat is isolated from the environment? It must be if you say 
it later decoheres (even if later is only a nano second). Why is this not a 
problem if, as you say, it is impossible to isolate the cat? AG *

>
> *It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly short. *
>
>
> Yes is does go away.  Even light can't travel the length of a cat in a 
> nano-second.  
>
>
> *And for this reason I still conclude that Schroedinger correctly pointed 
> out the fallacy in the standard interpretation of superposition; namely, 
> that the system represented by a superposition, is in all components states 
> simultaneously. AG *
>
>
> It's not a fallacy.  It just doesn't apply to the cat or other macroscopic 
> objects, with rare laboratory exceptions. 
>

*Other than slit experiments where superposition can be interpreted as the 
system being in both component states simultaneously, why is this 
interpretation extendable to all isolated quantum systems? AG *

> Any old plane polarized photon can be represented as being in a 
> superposition of left and right circular polarization.  It is *not* the 
> case that a system is in all basis states at once unless you count being in 
> state *|x>*  with z

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation? (+ combinator 1, copy)

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 30 Jul 2018, at 21:54, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> I always look forward to your tutorials in logic...even if I don't mistake 
> them for reality. :-)

Well, thanks. Did you get my post “Combinators 1 (introduction) ?
(I put it below in case you missed it). Well, it is already a slight 
amelioration. Tell me if you understand. Soon I will soon solve some exercice 
so that people can get some training. The price of the conceptual simplicity of 
the combinators is that the notation can be a bit tricky.

> Brent
> 
> On 7/30/2018 8:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> If some people are interested, I can show how the two axioms Kxy = x and 
>> Sxyz (+ few legality axioms and rules, but without classical logic (unlike 
>> Robison arithmetic) gives a Turing complete theory. I have all this fresh in 
>> my head because I have just finished a thorough course on this. Combinators 
>> are also interesting to explain what is a computation and for 
>> differentiating different sorts of computation, including already sort of 
>> “physical computation”. Yet it would be treachery to use this directly. To 
>> distinguish 3p and 1p, and 3-1 quanta with 1-p qualia, we need to extract 
>> them from Löb’s formula, and use Löbian combinators. I will probably type a 
>> summary here.
>> 
>> Bruno

=== combinators 1 (introduction) 


Hi Jason, people,


I will send my post on the Church-Turing thesis and incompleteness later. It is 
too long.

So, let us proceed with the combinators.

Two seconds of historical motivation. During the crisis in set theory, Moses 
Schoenfinkel publishes, in 1924, an attempt to found mathematics on only 
functions. But he did not consider the functions as defined by their behaviour 
(or input-output) but more as rules to follow.

He considered also only functions of one variable, and wrote (f x) instead of 
the usual f(x).

The idea is that a binary function like (x + y) when given the input 4, say, 
and other inputs, will just remains patient, instead of insulting the user, and 
so to compute 4+5 you just give 5 (+ 4), that is you compute
((+ 4) 5). (+ 4) will be an object computing the function 4 + x. 


The composition of f and g on x is thus written  (f (g x)), and a combinator 
should be some function B able on f, g and x to give (f (g x)).

Bfgx = f(gx), for example. 

When I said that Shoenfinkel considered only functions, I meant it literally, 
and he accepts that a function applies to any other functions, so (f f) is 
permitted. Here (f f) is f applied to itself.

A first question was about the existence of a finite set of combinators capable 
of giving all possible combinators, noting that a combinators combine. 
Shoenfinkel will find that it is the case, and provide the S and K combinators, 
for this. I will prove this later.

A second question will be, can the SK-combinators compute all partial 
computable functions from N to N, and thus all total computable functions?  The 
answer is yes. That has been proved by Curry, I think.

OK? (Infinitely more could be said here, but let us give the mathematical 
definition of the SK-combinators:

K is a combinator. 
S is a combinator.
If x and y are combinator, then (x y) is a combinator.

That is, is combinator is S, or K or a combination of S and K.

So, the syntaxe is very easy, although there will be some problem with the 
parentheses which will justified a convention/simplifcation.

Example of combinators.

Well, K and S, and their combinations, (K K), (K S), (S K), (S S), and the (K ( 
K K)) and ((K K) K), and (K (K S)) and …… (((S (K S)) K) etc.

I directly introduce an abbreviation to avoid too many parentheses. As all 
combinator is a function with one argument, I suppress *all* parentheses 
starting from the left:
The enumeration above is then:  K, S, KK, KS, SK, K(KK), KKK, K(SK) and … 
S(KS)K ...

So aaa(bbb) will be an abbreviation for (  ((a a) a) ((b b) b) ). It means a 
applied on a, the result is applied on a, and that results is applied on  .. 
well the same with b (a and b being some combinators).



OK?

Of course, they obeys some axioms, without which it would be hard to believe 
they could be
1) combinatorial complete (theorem 1)
2) Turing complete (theorem 2)

What are the axioms?

I write them with the abbreviation (and without, a last time!)

Axiom 1 Kxy = x
Axiom 2 Sxyz = xz(yz)

That is all. With the parentheses:

Axiom 1 ((K x) y) = x
Axiom 1 (((S x) y) z) = ((x z)(y z))

Exemple: (K K) gives … well, it gives (K K), because K needs two arguments to 
do something. K, Smullyan’s Kestrel, can be seen as a projection on the first 
coordinate, but with that delayed answer when it has not enough argument, like 
the combinators do.

But ((K K) (K K)) = KK(KK) = K, as KK(KK) is a redex: it match the left 
hand-side of the axiom 1, with x = K and y = KK.

A natural first exercise consists in finding an identity combinator. That is a 
combinator I such that Ix = x.

Well, only Kxy can give x, and Kxy