Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-23 Thread Brent Meeker 




On 10/23/2018 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 23 Oct 2018, at 04:30, Brent Meeker  wrote:



On 10/22/2018 6:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

The mathematical reality has noting to do with languages, except that languages 
are needed if machine/people want to share the results of their exploration.

So how do you prove theorems without a language?

Of course, proving a theorem requires a theory, and a language. I was saying 
(see the quote) that the *arithmetical reality* does not require a language.

The arithmetical reality does not require a language more than dinosaurs needed 
the word “dinosaur” to exist. The prime character of 17 does not need a 
mathematician to assert it, or to think about.

To prove a theorem requires a theory, which requires a language.  We can only 
ope that our theory is in relation with truth, but the truth of 17 is prime, 
assuming it true,  does not need a proof to be true. A proof is neither 
necessary, nor sufficient. The arithmetical reality is independent of the 
big-bang. It is more plausible than an event like the big-bang requires some 
part of the arithmetical reality.


But you are basing our shared reality in what is provable, which is 
therefore dependent on having language.  Right?


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.

Measuring a system in a superposition of states vs in a mixed state

2018-10-23 Thread agrayson2000 
If a system is in a superposition of states, whatever value measured, will 
be repeated if the same system is repeatedly measured.  But what happens if 
the system is in a mixed state? TIA, 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: Quantum outperforms classical

2018-10-23 Thread Brent Meeker 

Thanks.

On 10/23/2018 1:56 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:


I posted/tweeted about that elsewhere a couple a weeks ago:

*Quantum Computers Speed Up Classical with Probability Zero*
Yuri Ozhigov
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9803064

also by Ozhigov:
*Constructive physics*
Yuri Ozhigov
https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2859


That's quite a tome.  It'll take a while to read it.

Brent

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

Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-23 Thread Philip Thrift 


On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 11:23:22 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> > On 23 Oct 2018, at 04:30, Brent Meeker  > wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 10/22/2018 6:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> >> The mathematical reality has noting to do with languages, except that 
> languages are needed if machine/people want to share the results of their 
> exploration. 
> > 
> > So how do you prove theorems without a language? 
>
> Of course, proving a theorem requires a theory, and a language. I was 
> saying (see the quote) that the *arithmetical reality* does not require a 
> language. 
>
> The arithmetical reality does not require a language more than dinosaurs 
> needed the word “dinosaur” to exist. The prime character of 17 does not 
> need a mathematician to assert it, or to think about. 
>
> To prove a theorem requires a theory, which requires a language.  We can 
> only ope that our theory is in relation with truth, but the truth of 17 is 
> prime, assuming it true,  does not need a proof to be true. A proof is 
> neither necessary, nor sufficient. The arithmetical reality is independent 
> of the big-bang. It is more plausible than an event like the big-bang 
> requires some part of the arithmetical reality. 
>
> Bruno 
>
>

People have debated (written books on)  arithmetical or mathematical 
realism vs. fictionalism (and everything in between) until the cows come 
home (count them!), but here is something I found recently:

https://twitter.com/philipthrift/status/1053537641420021761

It's about the Sumerian goddess Nisaba who turned out to be the goddess of 
both writing and counting/arithmetic.

(There was no mathematics before writing.)

- pt

-- 
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: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-23 Thread Philip Thrift 


On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 11:13:52 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 22 Oct 2018, at 19:33, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 8:54:47 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 22 Oct 2018, at 14:38, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 6:05:41 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21 Oct 2018, at 13:55, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is generally not considered applying Rorty and or Derrida to 
>>> mathematical language, but mathematics is a language* too, like English. 
>>> (or programming languages for that matter).
>>>
>>>
>>> Mathematics is no more a language that physics. They use a mathematical 
>>> language, but the mathematical language is independent of the choice of a 
>>> theory (written in that mathematical language).
>>>
>>> We should always keep in mind the distinction between
>>> - a mathematical language (usually defined by some grammar which 
>>> determine the well formed formula)
>>> - a mathematical theory. (A precise choice of some formula)
>>> - a model of that mathematical theory (a structure satisfying the axioms 
>>> of a theory, with truth preserving inference rule).
>>> - a relation judged plausible between a model of a mathematical theory 
>>> and a portion or an aspect of some “reality".
>>>
>>> Exemple: take arithmetic: 
>>> - the mathematical language is given by -> f, E, A, “(“, “)”, x, y, z … 
>>> (logical symbols) with “s”, “0”, “+”, “*” (arithmetical symbols) + the 
>>> usual formation rule (if X and Y are formula, then X -> Y is a formula, 
>>> etc.)
>>> - an arithmetical theory: here the one by Robinson, with only 7 axioms 
>>> (chosen formula).
>>>
>>> 1) 0 ≠ s(x)
>>> 2) x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y)
>>> 3) x ≠ 0 -> Ey(x = s(y)) 
>>> 4) x+0 = x
>>> 5) x+s(y) = s(x+y)
>>> 6) x*0=0
>>> 7) x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
>>> + the inference rule of modus ponens
>>>
>>> - a model is given by any structure verifying (satisfying) the axioms 
>>> and truth preserving rule. The standard model is the set N together with 
>>> the usual addition and multiplication (but there are many models, not all 
>>> isomorphic to the standard model).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Mathematics, both pure and applied (e.g. physics), is a collection of 
>> paradigm-specific and domain-specific languages (PSLs, DSLs), just like 
>> programming languages.
>>
>>
>> I disagree. All programming languages are equivalent with respect of 
>> provability, and more or less equivalent when no induction axioms is added 
>> (in the first order theory of the total functions from N to N computed).
>>
>> But the theories all differ a lot. It is natural to measure the power of 
>> a theory by the magnitude of the set of computable functions that the 
>> theory can prove to be computable. For example Q (the theory above) proves 
>> the total-computability of a very small set of functions, Peano arithmetic 
>> (PA) proves a much larger set. ZF proves a very gigantic set, ZF + kappa 
>> proves an even greater set. You can guess this using incompleteness. For 
>> example ZF+kappa proves the arithmetical propositions which assert the 
>> consistency of ZF, and thus also all there consequences. 
>>
>> I look at the arithmetical reality like an ocean, except that it contains 
>> infinite water, and infinitely many holes in the bottom. For most all, you 
>> can explore them, without knowing if they have a bottom or not. In some 
>> case, you can prove that there is a bottom, but that need a very powerful 
>> theory (like ZF+kappa). 
>>
>> So the arithmetical is something that you can explore, and a theory, any 
>> theory, is just a lantern which provides some light in the neighbourhood.
>>
>> It is important to distinguish the arithmetical reality from any 
>> languages used to describe it, but it is also important to distinguish it 
>> from all theories, which are only “bodies” throwing light on something 
>> mainly unknown. 
>>
>> The mathematical reality has noting to do with languages, except that 
>> languages are needed if machine/people want to share the results of their 
>> exploration.
>>
>> The language is the arm.
>> The theory is the arm pointing in a direction
>> The reality is the moon.
>>
>> And this is a metaphor, as, with mechanism, the “moon” is but an object 
>> in (infinities) of number’s dreams (computation seen from inside, I 
>> eventually defined this using Gödel numbers).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> For example ,quantum field theory can be expressed in Hilbert-space or 
>> path-integral dialects.
>> http://www.fuw.edu.pl/~kostecki/daniel_ranard_essay.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> Like the notion of universal machine, many different theories and 
>> languages can be used to formulate QM.
>> Like Schrodinger/de Broglie Waves (equation/function), or Heisenger 
>> Matrix, or Feynman's summation. They are “easily” be shown equivalent (when 
>> discarding the collapse “hallucination”).
>> I guess this has to be the case with the relativistic

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

2018-10-23 Thread Philip Thrift 


On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 10:33:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 23 Oct 2018, at 11:20, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 1:41:06 AM UTC-5, scerir wrote:
>>
>>
>> *The original 'cat' was, of course, Einstein's 'gunpowder' paradox.*
>>
>> *'The system is a substance in chemically unstable equilibrium, perhaps a 
>> charge of gunpowder that, by means of intrinsic forces, can spontaneously 
>> combust, and where the average life span of the whole setup is a year. In 
>> principle this can quite easily be represented quantum-mechanically. In the 
>> beginning the psi-function characterizes a reasonably well-defined 
>> macroscopic state. But, according to your equation [i.e., the Schrödinger 
>> equation], after the course of a year this is no longer the case. Rather, 
>> the psi-function then describes a sort of blend of not-yet and 
>> already-exploded systems. Through no art of interpretation can this 
>> psi-function be turned into an adequate description of a real state of 
>> affairs; in reality there is no intermediary between exploded and 
>> not-exploded.' *
>>
>> *Letter from Einstein to Schrödinger, dated 8 August 1935. in Fine, A. 
>> The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory, University of 
>> Chicago Press, Chicago (1986). Letter from Einstein to Schrödinger, dated 8 
>> August 1935.*
>>
>>
>>
>
> *Through no art of interpretation can this psi-function be turned into an 
> adequate description of a real state of affairs; *
>
>
>
The quote above is taken from the letter Einstein wrote above.




(I guess this is from AG).
>
> It is a description of (interfering physically) many “real” state of 
> affairs. That is what is strange in QM: it describes an evolving wave of 
> “possibilities”.
>
> Without collapse, you can only obtain what the observer can predict and 
> observe from inside those possibilities. Actuality is a possibility (a 
> consistent set of propositions) seen from inside.
>
>
>
>
> *in reality there is no intermediary between exploded and not-exploded.’*
>
>
>
> There are many intermediaries. Like some measure on the histories where it 
> exploded, and histories where it did not. It can explode in all histories 
> or in none, or in x percent of them. That does not give the measure per se, 
> without defining histories and the mean of self-reference to define a 
> “possibility seen from inside”.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This is interesting.
>
> Einstein (but other physicists too) avoiding retrocausality and 
> stochasticity, like vampires avoiding sunlight and running water. :)
>
>
>

The Price-Wharton take: https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7744 (Dispelling the 
Quantum Spooks -- a Clue that Einstein Missed?)

 

> He was wise, imo.  He did not pushes the relativity far enough, probably 
> because it took the mind-body relation from granted.
>
> Assuming mechanism, it is a fact that the arithmetical reality emulates 
> all observers view of consistent “histories” of some sort. 
>
> The existence of a physical universe looks like a miracle to me, and I 
> prefer to invoke miracle only in the last resort, and that feeling is 
> amplified when you study the (negative) mathematics trying to see the limit 
> of the art of prestidigitation of the digital. It is not computably 
> bound-able.
>
> I don’t yet see the trick, but computer science and mathematical logic put 
> a lot of light for this inquiry.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>

Matter is a mystery. Why so many particles (the awfully named The Standard 
Model)? I think of

[ http://www.toomanynotes.com/Amadeus.htm ]

  replace "notes" with "particles" ]

...
EMPEROR: Exactly. Very well put. Too many notes. 

MOZART: I don't understand. There are just as many notes, Majesty, as are 
required. Neither more nor less. 

EMPEROR: My dear fellow, there are in fact only so many notes the ear can 
hear in the course of an evening. I think I'm right in saying that, aren't 
I, Court Composer? 

SALIERI: Yes! yes! er, on the whole, yes, Majesty. 

MOZART: But this is absurd! 

EMPEROR: My dear, young man, don't take it too hard. Your work is 
ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that's 
all. Cut a few and it will be perfect. 

MOZART: Which few did you have in mind, Majesty? 

EMPEROR: Well. There it is. 




- pt 

-- 
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: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-23 Thread Bruno Marchal 


> On 23 Oct 2018, at 04:30, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/22/2018 6:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> The mathematical reality has noting to do with languages, except that 
>> languages are needed if machine/people want to share the results of their 
>> exploration.
> 
> So how do you prove theorems without a language?

Of course, proving a theorem requires a theory, and a language. I was saying 
(see the quote) that the *arithmetical reality* does not require a language. 

The arithmetical reality does not require a language more than dinosaurs needed 
the word “dinosaur” to exist. The prime character of 17 does not need a 
mathematician to assert it, or to think about.

To prove a theorem requires a theory, which requires a language.  We can only 
ope that our theory is in relation with truth, but the truth of 17 is prime, 
assuming it true,  does not need a proof to be true. A proof is neither 
necessary, nor sufficient. The arithmetical reality is independent of the 
big-bang. It is more plausible than an event like the big-bang requires some 
part of the arithmetical 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: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-23 Thread Bruno Marchal 

> On 22 Oct 2018, at 19:33, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 8:54:47 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 22 Oct 2018, at 14:38, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 6:05:41 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 21 Oct 2018, at 13:55, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> It is generally not considered applying Rorty and or Derrida to 
>>> mathematical language, but mathematics is a language* too, like English. 
>>> (or programming languages for that matter).
>> 
>> Mathematics is no more a language that physics. They use a mathematical 
>> language, but the mathematical language is independent of the choice of a 
>> theory (written in that mathematical language).
>> 
>> We should always keep in mind the distinction between
>> - a mathematical language (usually defined by some grammar which determine 
>> the well formed formula)
>> - a mathematical theory. (A precise choice of some formula)
>> - a model of that mathematical theory (a structure satisfying the axioms of 
>> a theory, with truth preserving inference rule).
>> - a relation judged plausible between a model of a mathematical theory and a 
>> portion or an aspect of some “reality".
>> 
>> Exemple: take arithmetic: 
>> - the mathematical language is given by -> f, E, A, “(“, “)”, x, y, z … 
>> (logical symbols) with “s”, “0”, “+”, “*” (arithmetical symbols) + the usual 
>> formation rule (if X and Y are formula, then X -> Y is a formula, etc.)
>> - an arithmetical theory: here the one by Robinson, with only 7 axioms 
>> (chosen formula).
>> 
>> 1) 0 ≠ s(x)
>> 2) x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y)
>> 3) x ≠ 0 -> Ey(x = s(y)) 
>> 4) x+0 = x
>> 5) x+s(y) = s(x+y)
>> 6) x*0=0
>> 7) x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
>> + the inference rule of modus ponens
>> 
>> - a model is given by any structure verifying (satisfying) the axioms and 
>> truth preserving rule. The standard model is the set N together with the 
>> usual addition and multiplication (but there are many models, not all 
>> isomorphic to the standard model).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Mathematics, both pure and applied (e.g. physics), is a collection of 
>> paradigm-specific and domain-specific languages (PSLs, DSLs), just like 
>> programming languages.
> 
> I disagree. All programming languages are equivalent with respect of 
> provability, and more or less equivalent when no induction axioms is added 
> (in the first order theory of the total functions from N to N computed).
> 
> But the theories all differ a lot. It is natural to measure the power of a 
> theory by the magnitude of the set of computable functions that the theory 
> can prove to be computable. For example Q (the theory above) proves the 
> total-computability of a very small set of functions, Peano arithmetic (PA) 
> proves a much larger set. ZF proves a very gigantic set, ZF + kappa proves an 
> even greater set. You can guess this using incompleteness. For example 
> ZF+kappa proves the arithmetical propositions which assert the consistency of 
> ZF, and thus also all there consequences. 
> 
> I look at the arithmetical reality like an ocean, except that it contains 
> infinite water, and infinitely many holes in the bottom. For most all, you 
> can explore them, without knowing if they have a bottom or not. In some case, 
> you can prove that there is a bottom, but that need a very powerful theory 
> (like ZF+kappa). 
> 
> So the arithmetical is something that you can explore, and a theory, any 
> theory, is just a lantern which provides some light in the neighbourhood.
> 
> It is important to distinguish the arithmetical reality from any languages 
> used to describe it, but it is also important to distinguish it from all 
> theories, which are only “bodies” throwing light on something mainly unknown. 
> 
> The mathematical reality has noting to do with languages, except that 
> languages are needed if machine/people want to share the results of their 
> exploration.
> 
> The language is the arm.
> The theory is the arm pointing in a direction
> The reality is the moon.
> 
> And this is a metaphor, as, with mechanism, the “moon” is but an object in 
> (infinities) of number’s dreams (computation seen from inside, I eventually 
> defined this using Gödel numbers).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> For example ,quantum field theory can be expressed in Hilbert-space or 
>> path-integral dialects.
>> http://www.fuw.edu.pl/~kostecki/daniel_ranard_essay.pdf 
>> 
> 
> 
> Like the notion of universal machine, many different theories and languages 
> can be used to formulate QM.
> Like Schrodinger/de Broglie Waves (equation/function), or Heisenger Matrix, 
> or Feynman's summation. They are “easily” be shown equivalent (when 
> discarding the collapse “hallucination”).
> I guess this has to be the case with the relativistic correction, and it is 
> of course an open problem for the unknown unified theory (marrying QM and 
> GR).

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

2018-10-23 Thread Bruno Marchal 

> On 23 Oct 2018, at 11:20, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 1:41:06 AM UTC-5, scerir wrote:
> 
> 
> The original 'cat' was, of course, Einstein's 'gunpowder' paradox.
> 
> 'The system is a substance in chemically unstable equilibrium, perhaps a 
> charge of gunpowder that, by means of intrinsic forces, can spontaneously 
> combust, and where the average life span of the whole setup is a year. In 
> principle this can quite easily be represented quantum-mechanically. In the 
> beginning the psi-function characterizes a reasonably well-defined 
> macroscopic state. But, according to your equation [i.e., the Schrödinger 
> equation], after the course of a year this is no longer the case. Rather, the 
> psi-function then describes a sort of blend of not-yet and already-exploded 
> systems. Through no art of interpretation can this psi-function be turned 
> into an adequate description of a real state of affairs; in reality there is 
> no intermediary between exploded and not-exploded.'
> 
> Letter from Einstein to Schrödinger, dated 8 August 1935. in Fine, A. The 
> Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory, University of Chicago 
> Press, Chicago (1986). Letter from Einstein to Schrödinger, dated 8 August 
> 1935.
> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> Through no art of interpretation can this psi-function be turned into an 
> adequate description of a real state of affairs;

(I guess this is from AG).

It is a description of (interfering physically) many “real” state of affairs. 
That is what is strange in QM: it describes an evolving wave of “possibilities”.

Without collapse, you can only obtain what the observer can predict and observe 
from inside those possibilities. Actuality is a possibility (a consistent set 
of propositions) seen from inside.




> in reality there is no intermediary between exploded and not-exploded.’


There are many intermediaries. Like some measure on the histories where it 
exploded, and histories where it did not. It can explode in all histories or in 
none, or in x percent of them. That does not give the measure per se, without 
defining histories and the mean of self-reference to define a “possibility seen 
from inside”.







> 
> 
> This is interesting.
> 
> Einstein (but other physicists too) avoiding retrocausality and 
> stochasticity, like vampires avoiding sunlight and running water. :)

He was wise, imo.  He did not pushes the relativity far enough, probably 
because it took the mind-body relation from granted.

Assuming mechanism, it is a fact that the arithmetical reality emulates all 
observers view of consistent “histories” of some sort. 

The existence of a physical universe looks like a miracle to me, and I prefer 
to invoke miracle only in the last resort, and that feeling is amplified when 
you study the (negative) mathematics trying to see the limit of the art of 
prestidigitation of the digital. It is not computably bound-able.

I don’t yet see the trick, but computer science and mathematical logic put a 
lot of light for this inquiry.

Bruno



> 
> -pt
> 
> -- 
> 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: Interpretation of Superposition

2018-10-23 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List 

> Il 23 ottobre 2018 alle 13.42 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 10:36:16 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > > > > Il 23 ottobre 2018 alle 11.20 Philip Thrift < 
> > cloud...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 1:41:06 AM UTC-5, scerir 
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > The original 'cat' was, of course, Einstein's 
> > > > 'gunpowder' paradox.
> > > > 
> > > > 'The system is a substance in chemically unstable 
> > > > equilibrium, perhaps a charge of gunpowder that, by means of intrinsic 
> > > > forces, can spontaneously combust, and where the average life span of 
> > > > the whole setup is a year. In principle this can quite easily be 
> > > > represented quantum-mechanically. In the beginning the psi-function 
> > > > characterizes a reasonably well-defined macroscopic state. But, 
> > > > according to your equation [i.e., the Schrödinger equation], after the 
> > > > course of a year this is no longer the case. Rather, the psi-function 
> > > > then describes a sort of blend of not-yet and already-exploded systems. 
> > > > Through no art of interpretation can this psi-function be turned into 
> > > > an adequate description of a real state of affairs; in reality there is 
> > > > no intermediary between exploded and not-exploded.'
> > > > 
> > > > Letter from Einstein to Schrödinger, dated 8 August 
> > > > 1935. in Fine, A. The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum 
> > > > Theory, University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1986). Letter from 
> > > > Einstein to Schrödinger, dated 8 August 1935.
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > 
> > > Through no art of interpretation can this psi-function be 
> > > turned into an adequate description of a real state of affairs; in 
> > > reality there is no intermediary between exploded and not-exploded.'
> > > 
> > > 
> > > This is interesting.
> > > 
> > > Einstein (but other physicists too) avoiding retrocausality 
> > > and stochasticity, like vampires avoiding sunlight and running water. :)
> > > 
> > > -pt
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > There are situations in which a superposition is a superposition 
> > and not an "expectation-catalogue" or a mixture. See 
> > https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9780306456602 
> > https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9780306456602 pages 8 etc.
> > 
> > > 
> Can you post the relevant pages? The cost for access is high. TIA, AG
> 

Try this (it is a very good book)   https://tinyurl.com/y7f6y7rs   and read 
page 11

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

2018-10-23 Thread agrayson2000 


On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 10:36:16 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
>
>
> Il 23 ottobre 2018 alle 11.20 Philip Thrift  > ha scritto: 
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 1:41:06 AM UTC-5, scerir wrote:
>
>
> *The original 'cat' was, of course, Einstein's 'gunpowder' paradox.*
>
> *'The system is a substance in chemically unstable equilibrium, perhaps a 
> charge of gunpowder that, by means of intrinsic forces, can spontaneously 
> combust, and where the average life span of the whole setup is a year. In 
> principle this can quite easily be represented quantum-mechanically. In the 
> beginning the psi-function characterizes a reasonably well-defined 
> macroscopic state. But, according to your equation [i.e., the Schrödinger 
> equation], after the course of a year this is no longer the case. Rather, 
> the psi-function then describes a sort of blend of not-yet and 
> already-exploded systems. Through no art of interpretation can this 
> psi-function be turned into an adequate description of a real state of 
> affairs; in reality there is no intermediary between exploded and 
> not-exploded.' *
>
> *Letter from Einstein to Schrödinger, dated 8 August 1935. in Fine, A. The 
> Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory, University of 
> Chicago Press, Chicago (1986). Letter from Einstein to Schrödinger, dated 8 
> August 1935.*
>
>  
>
>
>
>
> *Through no art of interpretation can this psi-function be turned into an 
> adequate description of a real state of affairs; in reality there is no 
> intermediary between exploded and not-exploded.'* 
>
>
> This is interesting.
>
> Einstein (but other physicists too) avoiding retrocausality and 
> stochasticity, like vampires avoiding sunlight and running water. :)
>
> -pt
>
>  
>
> There are situations in which a superposition is a superposition and not 
> an "expectation-catalogue" or a mixture. See 
> https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9780306456602 pages 8 etc.
>

*Can you post the relevant pages? The cost for access is high. TIA, 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-li...@googlegroups.com . 
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> . 
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
>
>

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

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

2018-10-23 Thread agrayson2000 


On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 6:41:06 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
>
>
> Il 22 ottobre 2018 alle 23.20 agrays...@gmail.com  ha 
> scritto: 
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 5:39:28 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, October 19, 2018 at 9:08:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/19/2018 10:59 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Friday, October 19, 2018 at 5:44:10 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/19/2018 12:17 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>
> *I can see how recoherence is impossible FAPP, but after some time elapses 
> the state of the cat could Dead or Alive; not necessarily the original 
> state, Alive. A*G  
>
>
> When recoherence is no longer possible that's a real physical change.  The 
> system has evolved. 
>
>
> *Since decoherence is a unitary process, isn't recoherence always 
> possible, even if not FAPP? AG*
>
>
> Sure.  If you could reverse the outgoing waves and the local universe. 
>
>
> *Since recoherence is always possible, even if astronomically unlikely 
> like many physical macro processes, why do you make the point that there's 
> a real physical change when it's no longer possible (which is never)?  I 
> ask because your comment is confusing. AG* 
>
>
> That's the real physical change.  Outgoing radiation has left at the speed 
> of light out into an expanding universe; it ain't comin' back.  Why is that 
> confusing? 
>
>
> *You seem to conflate two concepts; Irreversible FAPP, and Irreversible 
> (aka Absolutely Irreversible, aka Irreversible in Principle). I tend to 
> believe that every unitary process is either easily reversible, or 
> irreversible FAPP (meaning possibly reversible even if hugely improbable). 
> In the case of two closed containers attached to each other, one in vacuum 
> state and the other filled with gas at some temperature, one can imagine 
> all the gas in one container finally equalizing in both containers. That 
> would occur in finite time, but is Irreversible FAPP. In your example 
> above, one can imagine the outgoing photons bending around super dense 
> masses and returning to their original positions or states. So I would say 
> this outcome is Irreversible FAPP, but you say it's Irreversible, meaning 
> Absolutely Irreversible or Irreversible in Principle. So which is it? AG* 
>
> *The more interesting issue is whether the WF in the Cat experiment, or 
> for an atom with a half life for decay, evolves in time while the box is 
> closed. I say it must evolve because the probability amplitudes are time 
> dependent. What say you? AG*
>
>
> *Seriously; if the wf for a radioactive atom evolves in time, why would 
> placing it in a box change that (or do I misunderstand what you and Bruce 
> are claiming)? AG *
>
> *The original 'cat' was, of course, Einstein's 'gunpowder' paradox.*
>
> *'The system is a substance in chemically unstable equilibrium, perhaps a 
> charge of gunpowder that, by means of intrinsic forces, can spontaneously 
> combust, and where the average life span of the whole setup is a year. In 
> principle this can quite easily be represented quantum-mechanically. In the 
> beginning the psi-function characterizes a reasonably well-defined 
> macroscopic state. But, according to your equation [i.e., the Schrödinger 
> equation], after the course of a year this is no longer the case. Rather, 
> the psi-function then describes a sort of blend of not-yet and 
> already-exploded systems. Through no art of interpretation can this 
> psi-function be turned into an adequate description of a real state of 
> affairs; in reality there is no intermediary between exploded and 
> not-exploded.' *
>
>  

> *Letter from Einstein to Schrödinger, dated 8 August 1935. in Fine, A. The 
> Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory, University of 
> Chicago Press, Chicago (1986). Letter from Einstein to Schrödinger, dated 8 
> August 1935.*
>

*Just to be clear; when I asserted that the wf for a radioactive source or 
Schroedinger's Cat evolves when placed in a box which is then closed, I did 
NOT mean the two state system is ever in both state simultaneously; rather, 
that the probability of being in either state changes with time. AG *

>
>
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com . 
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> . 
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
>
>

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

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

2018-10-23 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List 

> Il 23 ottobre 2018 alle 11.20 Philip Thrift  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 1:41:06 AM UTC-5, scerir wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > The original 'cat' was, of course, Einstein's 'gunpowder' paradox.
> > 
> > 'The system is a substance in chemically unstable equilibrium, 
> > perhaps a charge of gunpowder that, by means of intrinsic forces, can 
> > spontaneously combust, and where the average life span of the whole setup 
> > is a year. In principle this can quite easily be represented 
> > quantum-mechanically. In the beginning the psi-function characterizes a 
> > reasonably well-defined macroscopic state. But, according to your equation 
> > [i.e., the Schrödinger equation], after the course of a year this is no 
> > longer the case. Rather, the psi-function then describes a sort of blend of 
> > not-yet and already-exploded systems. Through no art of interpretation can 
> > this psi-function be turned into an adequate description of a real state of 
> > affairs; in reality there is no intermediary between exploded and 
> > not-exploded.'
> > 
> > Letter from Einstein to Schrödinger, dated 8 August 1935. in Fine, 
> > A. The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory, University of 
> > Chicago Press, Chicago (1986). Letter from Einstein to Schrödinger, dated 8 
> > August 1935.
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > 
> 
> Through no art of interpretation can this psi-function be turned into an 
> adequate description of a real state of affairs; in reality there is no 
> intermediary between exploded and not-exploded.'
> 
> 
> This is interesting.
> 
> Einstein (but other physicists too) avoiding retrocausality and 
> stochasticity, like vampires avoiding sunlight and running water. :)
> 
> -pt
> 
>  
> 

There are situations in which a superposition is a superposition and not an 
"expectation-catalogue" or a mixture. See 
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9780306456602 pages 8 etc.

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 
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com .
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
mailto: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: Interpretation of Superposition

2018-10-23 Thread Philip Thrift 


On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 1:41:06 AM UTC-5, scerir wrote:
>
>
> *The original 'cat' was, of course, Einstein's 'gunpowder' paradox.*
>
> *'The system is a substance in chemically unstable equilibrium, perhaps a 
> charge of gunpowder that, by means of intrinsic forces, can spontaneously 
> combust, and where the average life span of the whole setup is a year. In 
> principle this can quite easily be represented quantum-mechanically. In the 
> beginning the psi-function characterizes a reasonably well-defined 
> macroscopic state. But, according to your equation [i.e., the Schrödinger 
> equation], after the course of a year this is no longer the case. Rather, 
> the psi-function then describes a sort of blend of not-yet and 
> already-exploded systems. Through no art of interpretation can this 
> psi-function be turned into an adequate description of a real state of 
> affairs; in reality there is no intermediary between exploded and 
> not-exploded.' *
>
> *Letter from Einstein to Schrödinger, dated 8 August 1935. in Fine, A. The 
> Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory, University of 
> Chicago Press, Chicago (1986). Letter from Einstein to Schrödinger, dated 8 
> August 1935.*
>
>
>

*Through no art of interpretation can this psi-function be turned into an 
adequate description of a real state of affairs; in reality there is no 
intermediary between exploded and not-exploded.'*


This is interesting.

Einstein (but other physicists too) avoiding retrocausality and 
stochasticity, like vampires avoiding sunlight and running water. :)

-pt

-- 
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: Quantum outperforms classical

2018-10-23 Thread Philip Thrift 

I posted/tweeted about that elsewhere a couple a weeks ago:

*Quantum Computers Speed Up Classical with Probability Zero*
Yuri Ozhigov
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9803064 

also by Ozhigov:
*Constructive physics*
Yuri Ozhigov
https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2859 

- pt


On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 5:40:17 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> I can't find it right now, but I think I read that someone had proven 
> that the number problems that could be speeded up by quantum computation 
> was of measure zero.  Of course the number of problems we're interested 
> in is also of measure zero, so that's not necessarily an argument 
> against developing quantum computers. 
>
> Brent 
>
> On 10/21/2018 6:44 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: 
> > Finally a proof that quantum computers outperform classical computers 
> > for a certain class of problems? Thoughts? 
> > 
> > "Quantum computers are expected to be better at solving certain 
> > computational problems than classical computers. This expectation is 
> > based on (well-founded) conjectures in computational complexity 
> > theory, but rigorous comparisons between the capabilities of quantum 
> > and classical algorithms are difficult to perform. Bravyi et al. 
> > proved theoretically that whereas the number of “steps” needed by 
> > parallel quantum circuits to solve certain linear algebra problems was 
> > independent of the problem size, this number grew logarithmically with 
> > size for analogous classical circuits (see the Perspective by 
> > Montanaro). This so-called quantum advantage stems from the quantum 
> > correlations present in quantum circuits that cannot be reproduced in 
> > analogous classical circuits." 
> > 
> > http://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6412/308 
> > 
> > Cheers, 
> > Telmo. 
> > 
>
>

-- 
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: Interpretation of Superposition

2018-10-23 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List 

> Il 22 ottobre 2018 alle 23.20 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 5:39:28 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > On Friday, October 19, 2018 at 9:08:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > 
> > > On 10/19/2018 10:59 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Friday, October 19, 2018 at 5:44:10 PM UTC, Brent 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 10/19/2018 12:17 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > >   I can see how recoherence is impossible FAPP, but 
> > > > > > > after some time elapses the state of the cat could Dead or Alive; 
> > > > > > > not necessarily the original state, Alive. AG 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > >   When recoherence is no longer possible that's a real 
> > > > > > > > physical change.  The system has evolved.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > Since decoherence is a unitary process, 
> > > > > > isn't recoherence always possible, even if not FAPP? AG
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Sure.  If you 
> > > > > > could reverse the outgoing waves and the local universe.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > Since recoherence is always possible, even if 
> > > > astronomically unlikely like many physical macro processes, why do you 
> > > > make the point that there's a real physical change when it's no longer 
> > > > possible (which is never)?  I ask because your comment is confusing. AG
> > > > 
> > > > > > > That's the real physical change.  
> > > > Outgoing radiation has left at the speed of light out into an expanding 
> > > > universe; it ain't comin' back.  Why is that confusing?
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > You seem to conflate two concepts; Irreversible FAPP, and 
> > Irreversible (aka Absolutely Irreversible, aka Irreversible in Principle). 
> > I tend to believe that every unitary process is either easily reversible, 
> > or irreversible FAPP (meaning possibly reversible even if hugely 
> > improbable). In the case of two closed containers attached to each other, 
> > one in vacuum state and the other filled with gas at some temperature, one 
> > can imagine all the gas in one container finally equalizing in both 
> > containers. That would occur in finite time, but is Irreversible FAPP. In 
> > your example above, one can imagine the outgoing photons bending around 
> > super dense masses and returning to their original positions or states. So 
> > I would say this outcome is Irreversible FAPP, but you say it's 
> > Irreversible, meaning Absolutely Irreversible or Irreversible in Principle. 
> > So which is it? AG
> > 
> > The more interesting issue is whether the WF in the Cat experiment, 
> > or for an atom with a half life for decay, evolves in time while the box is 
> > closed. I say it must evolve because the probability amplitudes are time 
> > dependent. What say you? AG
> > 
> > > 
> Seriously; if the wf for a radioactive atom evolves in time, why would 
> placing it in a box change that (or do I misunderstand what you and Bruce are 
> claiming)? AG
> 

The original 'cat' was, of course, Einstein's 'gunpowder' paradox.

'The system is a substance in chemically unstable equilibrium, perhaps a charge 
of gunpowder that, by means of intrinsic forces, can spontaneously combust, and 
where the average life span of the whole setup is a year. In principle this can 
quite easily be represented quantum-mechanically. In the beginning the 
psi-function characterizes a reasonably well-defined macroscopic state. But, 
according to your equation [i.e., the Schrödinger equation], after the course 
of a year this is no longer the case. Rather, the psi-function then describes a 
sort of blend of not-yet and already-exploded systems. Through no art of 
interpretation can this psi-function be turned into an adequate description of 
a real state of affairs; in reality there is no intermediary between exploded 
and not-exploded.'

Letter from Einstein to Schrödinger, dated 8 August 1935. in Fine, A. The Shaky 
Game: Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory, University of Chicago Press, 
Chicago (1986). Letter from Einstein to Schrödinger, dated 8 August 1935.

> 
> > > 
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > Brent
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > 
>  
> 
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups