Black holes and the information paradox

They say if information is lost, determination is toast. But doesn't QM inherently affirm information loss? I mean, although, say, the SWE can be run backward in time to reconstruct any wf it describes, we can never reconstruct or play backward Born's rule, in the sense of knowing what

Re: Recommend this article, Even just for the Wheeler quote near the end

On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 5:29 PM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: *> in the biological world certain problems that are NP are figured out. > This runs from ants finding the minimal distance for their trails or even > protistans negotiating some space. Ants are good at

Re: Recommend this article, Even just for the Wheeler quote near the end

On 3/10/2019 2:29 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 5:18:56 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 3/7/2019 2:15 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: This makes a lot of sense, for in the biological world certain problems that are NP are figured out. This runs from ants

Re: Recommend this article, Even just for the Wheeler quote near the end

On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 5:18:56 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 3/7/2019 2:15 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > This makes a lot of sense, for in the biological world certain problems > that are NP are figured out. This runs from ants finding the minimal > distance for their trails or even

Re: Recommend this article, Even just for the Wheeler quote near the end

On 3/10/2019 6:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 9 Mar 2019, at 01:16, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 3/8/2019 2:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Why is the probability not 1.0. Why is there any effect at all in any continuation? Why

Re: Are there real numbers that cannot be defined?

> On 10 Mar 2019, at 13:52, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 7:10:40 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 8 Mar 2019, at 11:16, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, March 8, 2019 at 3:18:39 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 7 Mar 2019, at

Re: Recommend this article, Even just for the Wheeler quote near the end

> On 9 Mar 2019, at 01:16, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 3/8/2019 2:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> Why is the probability not 1.0. Why is there any effect at all in any >>> continuation? Why is experience dependent on physics, if it is just a >>> matter of

Re: Recommend this article, Even just for the Wheeler quote near the end

> On 8 Mar 2019, at 12:29, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Friday, March 8, 2019 at 4:42:28 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 7 Mar 2019, at 23:00, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 11:47:41 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 6 Mar 2019, at

Re: What is the largest integer you can write in 5 seconds?

> On 8 Mar 2019, at 22:00, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 5:05 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > BB(8000) is stil an infinitesimal (so to speak) compared to > f_epsilon_0(BB(8000)). > > I don't know what "f_epsilon_0" is but if its computable then

Re: What is the largest integer you can write in 5 seconds?

> On 8 Mar 2019, at 15:49, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 5:05 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > >> Assuming you're just using 2 symbols (like 0 and 1) there are (16001)^8000 > >> different 8000 state Turing Machines. And that is a very large number but

Re: Are there real numbers that cannot be defined?

> On 8 Mar 2019, at 11:16, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Friday, March 8, 2019 at 3:18:39 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 7 Mar 2019, at 12:26, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 5:11:57 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 6 Mar 2019, at