Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 13 Aug 2018, at 00:55, Bruce Kellett > wrote: Baylock made valiant attempts to introduce some measurements that were not made in order to show that Bell assumed counterfactual definiteness, but his attempts

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/13/2018 6:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 4:32 PM Brent Meeker > wrote: On 8/13/2018 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > I bring this question up because you repeatedly refer to only "one > Alice" before the measurement, and also

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 13 Aug 2018, at 00:48, Bruce Kellett > wrote: but the FTL are needed only if we associate the mind on Bob and Alice to the same branche, which has no meaning for me once they are space separated. You might

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 12 Aug 2018, at 14:59, Bruce Kellett > wrote: No, Price is wrong. He collapses the wave function in a non-local manner, even though he doesn't seem to realize it. Let me try again. The state is     |psi>=

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 06:58, wrote: > > > On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 2:27:55 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:05 AM Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> From: Jason Resch >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:06 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 11 Aug 2018, at

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 4:32 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 8/13/2018 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > I bring this question up because you repeatedly refer to only "one > > Alice" before the measurement, and also say that Alice and Bob are "in > > one and the same branch" prior to measurement.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:05 AM Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:06 AM Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: On

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/13/2018 3:20 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: If you start with impossible initial conditions you get impossible results.  Doesn't mean the theory is wrong. Brent What are the impossible initial conditions? AG You apparently contemplated a perfectly

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 10:20:09 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 5:51:17 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 8/12/2018 10:13 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 2:10:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 5:51:17 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 8/12/2018 10:13 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 2:10:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 8/12/2018 9:26 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> *I meant to write; Just DO the math! Since

A Brief History of Metaphysics

A Brief History of Metaphysics Brent P.S. But has Wittgenstein heard about computationalism? -- 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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/13/2018 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: I bring this question up because you repeatedly refer to only "one Alice" before the measurement, and also say that Alice and Bob are "in one and the same branch" prior to measurement.  But normal QM without collapse would say Alice and Bob are

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/13/2018 6:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The wave function is not a "physical" object -- it can easily change instantaneously, just as probabilities change on the advent of new information. Then we are no more in Everett non-collapse QM, and I am not sure how you can explain the double

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 2:27:55 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:05 AM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> From: Jason Resch > >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:06 AM Bruno Marchal > > wrote: >> >>> >>> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:29, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>> They do

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/13/2018 6:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ...the measure on the set of branches are always 2^(aleph_0), and the measure is given by the square of the the amplitude of probability. ?? 2^(aleph_0) is never the square of the amplitude of probability. Brent -- You received this message

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 13 Aug 2018, at 03:32, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 6:51:23 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 4:44:18 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote: > > > On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 4:26:39 PM UTC,

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:05 AM Bruce Kellett wrote: > From: Jason Resch > > > On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:06 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:29, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >> They do not "belong to different branches" because they do not exist, and >> have never existed.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 13 Aug 2018, at 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:57, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> You are the one telling that the Bell’s

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 13 Aug 2018, at 00:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:49, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 9 Aug 2018, at 14:03, Bruce Kellett >>>

Re: The Ilusion of Branching and the MWI

> On 6 Aug 2018, at 21:11, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/6/2018 11:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 6 Aug 2018, at 09:23, agrayson2...@gmail.com >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, August 5, 2018 at 5:50:56 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >>>

Re: Combinators 1 (solutions to exercises)

Hi Jason, Brent, others, In this post, I sum up what we have seen so far, and provide the solutions to the (suggested) exercise. Skip the solutions if you still want to find by yourself. The motivation is to better appreciate what is a computation, and why, when we assume Mechanism, the two