Re: flat vs asymptotically flat universe

On 11/9/2017 9:15 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 11/9/2017 8:55 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com <mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com> wrote: On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 8:00:45 PM UTC

Re: flat vs asymptotically flat universe

On 11/10/2017 4:06 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:32 PM, Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 11/9/2017 9:15 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Re: flat vs asymptotically flat universe

On 11/10/2017 1:01 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 10, 2017 at 12:19:05 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/10/2017 4:06 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:32 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 11/9/2017 9:15 PM, Alan Grayson wr

Re: Interference of Probability Waves

Renormalization. On 11/10/2017 9:56 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: How is the resultant value kept between 0 and 1? TIA. -- 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, sen

Re: flat vs asymptotically flat universe

wrote: On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:32 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/9/2017 9:15 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/9/2017 8:55 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: ​ ​ >> ​ That's not the measurement problem, its determining if how and why observation effects things. ​ ​ > ​

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/11/2017 9:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:04 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: ​ ​ >> ​ That's not the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/11/2017 10:57 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/11/2017 9:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:04 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/12/2017 2:14 AM, smitra wrote: On 12-11-2017 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/11/2017 9:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:04 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/13/2017 1:40 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/11/2017 2:07 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: What really annoys me is the continued claim that many worlds eliminates the need for non-locality. It does not, and neither Bruno nor anyone else has ever

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/13/2017 5:01 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:41:02 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM, >wrote: * ​> ​ If you find collapse of the wf anathema, instead of the MWI why not just assume the br

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/13/2017 8:25 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:22:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:24 AM, >wrote: ​> ​>> ​ ​ What is your definition of non-realistic?

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/14/2017 6:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Nov 2017, at 22:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/11/2017 2:07 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: What really annoys me is the continued claim that many worlds eliminates the need for non-locality. It does

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/14/2017 3:17 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: HOWEVER, if you prefer, forget about number theory and consider the FINITE AGE of our universe, the observable and unobservable regions. It's been expanding for 13.8 billion years, so its spatial extent must be FINITE. That only shows tha

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/14/2017 3:17 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 3:32:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:52 PM, >wrote: ​> ​ I think every macro system, although comprised of a huge number of individual constituents, is

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/14/2017 7:46 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/11/2017 12:49 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:05:22AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: One of the strongest arguments for MWI was that it eliminates the concept of a conscious observer from the interpretation of quantum mech

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/15/2017 3:11 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/11/2017 3:12 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/14/2017 7:46 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/11/2017 12:49 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:05:22AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: One of the strongest arguments for MWI was that

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/15/2017 7:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Nov 2017, at 21:15, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/14/2017 6:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Nov 2017, at 22:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/11/2017 2:07 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: What really

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/15/2017 12:06 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: But if it tunnels into existence at t=0, how can it be infinite in extent? I find that egregiously hard to imagine, plus the fact that one has to use QM to explain the tunneling, and that, ipso facto, seems to imply it's infinitesimally

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/15/2017 1:38 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 16/11/2017 6:52 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/15/2017 3:11 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/11/2017 3:12 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/14/2017 7:46 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/11/2017 12:49 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/15/2017 2:40 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 2:37:02 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/15/2017 12:06 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > But if it tunnels into existence at t=0, how can it be infinite in > extent? I find that egregiousl

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/15/2017 3:20 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 16/11/2017 9:14 am, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:54:51PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/11/2017 5:02 pm, Russell Standish wrote: but be that as it may, I can't see how it solves the preferred basis problem. Consider an e

Re: What is the quantum state of a macro object?

Interesting questions.  Whenever we talk about a system being in a quantum state, we're thinking of the "system" as some degrees of freedom that are isolated, so they are not interacting with and becoming entangled with other things.  An SG experiment typically uses silver atoms and refers to t

Re: What is the quantum state of a macro object?

On 11/15/2017 7:36 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 7:54:27 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: Interesting questions. Whenever we talk about a system being in a quantum state, we're thinking of the "system" as some degrees of freedom that are isolated, so

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/15/2017 9:09 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 16/11/2017 11:30 am, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:20:45AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 16/11/2017 9:14 am, Russell Standish wrote: That is because we're considering an SG experiment, with an SG experimenter. That breaks t

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/15/2017 10:23 PM, smitra wrote: No time to find the right branch in this thread. Briefly the point I'm making is not really conditional on the details of quantum mechanics or the MWI, except that I'm assuming multiple worlds. The point is that in any parallel universes situation where

Re: What is the quantum state of a macro object?

On 11/15/2017 9:25 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 9:08:29 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/15/2017 7:36 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 7:54:27 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: Interesting questions.  Whenever w

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/17/2017 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Nov 2017, at 22:10, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/15/2017 7:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Nov 2017, at 21:15, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/14/2017 6:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Nov 2017, at 22:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/11

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/17/2017 1:17 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: *I think "must" is unwarranted, certainly in the case of the MWI. Rather, it ASSUMES all possible measurements must be realized in some world. I see no reason for this assumption other than an insistence to fully reify the wf in order to av

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/17/2017 4:04 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 2:38:40 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/17/2017 1:17 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: *I think "must" is unwarranted, certainly in the case of the MWI. Rather, it ASSUMES all possible measurements

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/17/2017 4:23 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 18/11/2017 10:43 am, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 3:18:39 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote: On 18/11/2017 12:10 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Nov 2017, at 22:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 16/11/2017 1:55 am, Bru

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/17/2017 6:08 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 6:41:43 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/17/2017 4:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 2:38:40 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/17/2017 1:17 PM, agrays...@gmail

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/17/2017 8:35 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 7:18:23 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/17/2017 6:08 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 6:41:43 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/17/2017 4:04 PM, agrays...@gmail

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/17/2017 6:41 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: *Not sure of the distinction between "an operator" and a "local operator" in the context of the singlet state. * A local operator would be one that interacts with only one of the two particles, i.e. it's located near Alice or near Bob, but

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/18/2017 3:00 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 10:57:36 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/17/2017 6:41 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: *Not sure of the distinction between "an operator" and a "local operator" in the context of the singlet state

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/18/2017 8:58 AM, John Clark wrote: * ​> ​ I think "must" is unwarranted, certainly in the case of the MWI. Rather, it ASSUMES all possible measurements must be realized in some world. ​ ​ **I see no reason for this assumption other than an insistence to fu

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/18/2017 12:23 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 10:10:32 AM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/18/2017 3:00 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 17, 2017 at 10:57:36 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/17/2017 6:41 PM, agrays...@

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/18/2017 12:59 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: If the physics of both regions is identical, and the observable region is astronomically small as near t=0 as we can get with GR -- which IIUC you have agree to -- what's the argument for saying the UNobservable region is spatially infinit

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/19/2017 10:10 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: ​>> ​ The MWI people don't have to assume anything because ​there is absolutely nothing in ​t he Schrodin

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/19/2017 6:57 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 8:33:31 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 3:16:06 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/18/2017 12:59 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: If the physics o

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/20/2017 10:36 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: I meant it as you say. Does non locality mean the future influences the past as Clark alleged? No. FTL influence between distant events A and B entails that in some reference frames A is before B and in others B is before A.  The relativity of

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/21/2017 4:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: No, it seems that for Maudlin MWi is essentially incoherent because it cannot come to grips with a sensible account of probabilities. All attempts to derive probabilities and the Born rule in MWI have been shown to be circular. Maudlin talks a littl

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/21/2017 2:36 PM, John Clark wrote: It certainly seems to me, and Maudlin gave me no reason to think otherwise, that if things are not realistic, if a photon is neither horizontally nor vertically polarized until I measure it, if things don't fully exist till I observe it them ​,​ then

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/21/2017 5:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 22/11/2017 12:06 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/21/2017 4:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: No, it seems that for Maudlin MWi is essentially incoherent because it cannot come to grips with a sensible account of probabilities. All attempts to derive

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/21/2017 6:21 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 22/11/2017 1:01 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/21/2017 5:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 22/11/2017 12:06 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/21/2017 4:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: No, it seems that for Maudlin MWi is essentially incoherent because it

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/21/2017 7:09 PM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>>wrote: ​> ​ it seems that for Maudlin MWi is essentially incoherent because it cannot come to grips with a sensible account of probabilities. All attempts

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/25/2017 9:55 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: Applying deBroglie's formula, a change in p changes the wave length, and thus the distribution on the screen. That is, the ensemble responds to changes in the wave length due to interference. I therefore deduce that the wave length has a ph

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/25/2017 7:38 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 4:08 PM, >wrote: * ​> ​>>​ ​ Do you really think that when you pull a slot machine and get some outcome, the 10 million other

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/26/2017 9:39 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 27 November 2017 at 16:19, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 27/11/2017 4:06 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 26 November 2017 at 13:33, mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> wrote: You keep ignoring

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/26/2017 9:48 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:44:25 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: On 27 November 2017 at 16:25, > wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:07:03 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: On 26 November 2017 at 13:33, wrote

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/26/2017 10:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 27 November 2017 at 16:54, > wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:48:58 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:44:25 AM UT

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/26/2017 10:45 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 27 November 2017 at 17:36, > wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:30:34 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:21:30 AM UT

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/26/2017 11:48 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:18 AM, > wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:54:13 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:45:43 AM UTC, st

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/27/2017 6:45 AM, Jason Resch wrote: I think your distaste with MWI comes from an incorrect view of how splitting occurs. Shooting a photon of at a slit doesn't instantly create millions or infinite numbers of universes. *But that's NOT what the enthusiasts o

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/27/2017 7:28 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 6:23 pm, > wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:12:09 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: On 27 November 2017 at 17:54, wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:45

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/27/2017 9:10 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 8:29:22 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Nov 2017, at 15:59, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 5:53:14 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: On 24/11/2017 10:15 am, Lawrence Crowell

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/27/2017 10:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The formal modal formula is B(Bp -> p) -> Bp. It looks also like wishful thinking. If you succeed in convincing a Löbian entity (whose beliefs are close for the Löb rule, or having Löb's theorem for its bewesibar predicate) that if she ever believ

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/27/2017 1:05 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:08:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 11/26/2017 10:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 27 November 2017 at 16:54, > wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:48:58 AM UTC, agra

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

Scary video...because it's nearly true. http://autonomousweapons.org/ Brent On 11/27/2017 1:32 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: IIRC, this is the view of Hawking and Musk. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe f

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 11/27/2017 2:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote: I think there might be two ways of interpreting this, each with different answers. The first question: Does AI create more threats that never existed before? I think the answer is most definitely yes. Some examples: - Large scale unemployment/disempo

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 11/27/2017 2:35 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote: I think there might be two ways of interpreting this, each with different answers. The first question: Does AI create more threats that never existed before? I think the answer is most definitel

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/27/2017 4:17 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 03:57:37PM -0500, John Clark wrote: wrote: ​> ​ Your source is fact-challenged. Weinberg thinks MULTIVERSE may have merit, but NOT the MWI, ​Then give me some facts! Where does Weinberg say that? And how can you have

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/27/2017 6:09 PM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Russell Standish mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au>>wrote: ​> ​ Alan deliberately uses the term "Multiverse" to refer to the string ​ landscape. And I think think the string theory Multiverse is related t

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/27/2017 6:14 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 05:09:13PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/27/2017 4:17 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 03:57:37PM -0500, John Clark wrote: wrote: ​> ​ Your source is fact-challenged. Weinberg thi

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 11/28/2017 6:33 AM, Jason Resch wrote: If you look at everything that motivates all human endeavors, it is ultimately, all about realizing and maximizing good experiences while avoiding and minimizing bad experiences. Mostly, but not entirely.  People (especially parents) sacrifice for ot

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/28/2017 7:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Nov 2017, at 23:02, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/27/2017 10:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The formal modal formula is B(Bp -> p) -> Bp. It looks also like wishful thinking. If you succeed in convincing a Löbian entity (whose belie

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/28/2017 9:30 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>wrote: ​>> ​ I think think the string theory Multiverse is related to the inflation theory Multiverse and both are related

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 11/28/2017 6:47 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 at 11:52 am, Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 11/28/2017 6:33 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > If you look at everything that motivates all human endeavors, it is > ultima

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/28/2017 7:29 PM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>wrote: ​>> ​ And how is the Eternal Inflation Multiverse fundamentally different from the String Theory Multiverse? ​ ​&

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/28/2017 7:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 2:29 pm, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​ >> ​ And how is the Eternal Inflation Multiverse fundamentally different from the String Theory Mult

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/28/2017 8:51 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 3:22 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 7:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 2:29 pm, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​ >> ​ And how is the Eternal Inf

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/28/2017 11:10 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 5:28 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 8:51 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 3:22 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 7:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 2:29 pm, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:05

Re: Feynman and the Everything

On 11/29/2017 2:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I think what I was thinking here were "closed loop feyman diagrams", where any possible diagram might be drawn in the tiniest area of space, so long as it is closed, e.g. fluctuations/particle creations are permitted so long as they all cancel out.

Re: Feynman and the Everything

On 11/29/2017 2:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Nov 2017, at 14:52, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 7:50 AM, Jason Resch > wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: On 27 Nov 2017, at

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 11/29/2017 3:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Nov 2017, at 18:49, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: This question is more interesting. I tend to fall in the camp that we exercise little control over the ulti

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/29/2017 6:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Nov 2017, at 02:19, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 7:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Nov 2017, at 23:02, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/27/2017 10:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The formal modal formula is B(Bp -> p) -> Bp. It

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 11/29/2017 9:54 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 8:38:50 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 11/29/2017 3:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Nov 2017, at 18:49, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/29/2017 9:34 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 5:21:40 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 8:44:18 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 5:29:01 PM UTC, John Clark

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/29/2017 1:57 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: I don't see that superdeterminism is ruled out, or can be ruled out by experience.  Experience would seem to rule out MWI too, because like superdeterminism it posits stuff that can't be experienced: superdeterminism because the don't happen, MWI be

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/29/2017 10:17 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 6:09:26 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 11/29/2017 9:34 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 5:21:40 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, Novem

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 11/30/2017 10:30 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: To go further: not so long ago, most people would freely defend that the lives of people from their ethnicity are more valuable than those of other ethnicities. It seems to me that only recently did the civilization process start to oppose this way o

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 11/30/2017 11:45 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 4:16 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/30/2017 10:30 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: To go further: not so long ago, most people would freely defend that the lives of people from their ethnicity are more valuable than those of other

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 12/1/2017 3:48 PM, David Nyman wrote: Another aspect of this is that if, in imagination, you progressively reduce the duration of your effective short term memory, at some point you will intuit that you have become effectively 'unconscious', or at least un-self-conscious, as you will be

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 12/1/2017 4:46 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 2 December 2017 at 00:06, Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 12/1/2017 3:48 PM, David Nyman wrote: Another aspect of this is that if, in imagination, you progressively reduce the duration of your effect

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 12/1/2017 5:21 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 2 December 2017 at 00:58, Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 12/1/2017 4:46 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 2 December 2017 at 00:06, Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 12/1/2017

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 12/1/2017 6:35 PM, David Nyman wrote: I think it likely that ability in humans co-evolved with the development of language.  Did you ever read Julian Jaynes "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"? You betcha! A paradigm shifter if ever I read one

Re: After 37 years, Voyager 1 has fired up its trajectory thrusters

A triumph of U.S. engineering! Brent On 12/2/2017 5:51 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Beautiful: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/12/after-37-years-voyager-has-fired-up-its-trajectory-thrusters/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" gr

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 12/3/2017 5:11 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 6:17:18 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 7:42:30 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 12:55:04 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: I ca

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 12/3/2017 5:21 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 1:11:41 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 6:17:18 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 7:42:30 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wr

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/3/2017 7:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: I think it is most likely that the magician knows the way the coin is lying initially, and simply counts the number of spins, catching the coin after the appropriate even or odd number. As you suggest, this trick would not work if you allow the coin

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 12/4/2017 4:24 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: Lawrence is taking the long view, that we're destroying our life support systems with the obvious implication that we will go extinct. The evidence favors this view IMO. AG Predator/prey cycles don't result in extinction of the predator.

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 12/4/2017 5:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Dec 2017, at 04:55, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/1/2017 6:35 PM, David Nyman wrote: I think it likely that ability in humans co-evolved with the development of language. Did you ever read Julian Jaynes "The Orig

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 12/4/2017 5:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It is the building of the "model/reality", but it makes sense only through some reality, and consciousness is on the side of that reality, which lead to the utter counter-intuitive idea that to get individual coherence, we need a brain making us less

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/4/2017 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Dec 2017, at 04:34, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 02:11:11PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 3/12/2017 9:03 am, Russell Standish wrote: The point being that the uncertainty in the coin's initial position is itself due to the

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 12/4/2017 3:12 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 2:41:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 12/4/2017 4:24 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > Lawrence is taking the long view, that we're destroying our life > support systems with the obvious implication that we

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 12/4/2017 4:41 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 11:19:49 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 12/4/2017 3:12 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 2:41:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 12/4/2017 4:24 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/4/2017 4:48 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Do you not understand that one of the enduring mysteries of quantum theory is the emergence of the classical world from the purely quantum substrate? Decoherence goes a long way towards answering the underlying problems, but unless something interven

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 12/4/2017 4:59 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 2 December 2017 at 01:57, Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 12/1/2017 5:21 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 2 December 2017 at 00:58, Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 12/1/2017

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/4/2017 4:53 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:26:53AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 5/12/2017 3:15 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: I think that is enough to get the macroscopic superposition, as, like I explained, you have to take into account not just the quantum indeter

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/4/2017 7:23 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 5/12/2017 2:03 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 12:18:02PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: Randomness in the sense that I am using it arises in deterministic systems from lack of knowledge of the initial conditions. As in the coin

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >