On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 6:12 PM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
>
> The branching makes the outcome fundamentally unpredictable, which is what
> randomness is. It results from the branching and nothing else. It is not
> specific to QM or MWI: it results from any process where the observer
> branches.
On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 6:51 PM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Sept 2024 at 18:25, Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 6:12 PM Stathis Papaioannou
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 13 Sept 2024 at 17:30, Bruce Kellett
>>> wrote:
>
On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 6:45 PM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 18:15 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>> Le ven. 13 sept. 2024, 10:12, Stathis Papaioannou a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> On Fri, 13 Sept 2024 at 17:30, Bruce Kellett
>>> wrote:
>&g
On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 6:15 PM Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Le ven. 13 sept. 2024, 10:12, Stathis Papaioannou a
> écrit :
>
>> On Fri, 13 Sept 2024 at 17:30, Bruce Kellett
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 5:23 PM Stathis Papaioannou
>>>
On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 6:12 PM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Sept 2024 at 17:30, Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 5:23 PM Stathis Papaioannou
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 13 Sept 2024 at 15:08, Bruce Kellett
>>> wrote:
&
On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 5:23 PM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Sept 2024 at 15:08, Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 1:07 PM Liz R wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that works. The idea often put forward is something along
On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 5:18 PM Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Le ven. 13 sept. 2024, 09:04, Bruce Kellett a
> écrit :
>
>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 4:51 PM Stathis Papaioannou
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 13 Sept 2024 at 15:08, Bruce Kellett
>>> wrote:
&
On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 4:51 PM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Sept 2024 at 15:08, Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 1:07 PM Liz R wrote:
>>
>> I don't think that works. The idea often put forward is something along
>> the lines
On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 1:07 PM Liz R wrote:
> On Friday 13 September 2024 at 11:47:31 UTC+12 Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 9:28 AM Liz R wrote:
>
> Yes I wondered about that, but it's possible that physics isn't
> *intrinsically* random.
&
On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 9:28 AM Liz R wrote:
> Yes I wondered about that, but it's possible that physics isn't
> *intrinsically* random.
No, that isn't possible. Randomness is intrinsic, and not derivable from
anything else.
It could be based on something computable, and only appear random fro
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 8:45 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 5:23 PM Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
> *> "I don't think you understand "values". They are the basis of
>> motivation,\"*
>>
>
> *And **I think you don't understand what the word "motivation" means, the
> reasons that someth
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:46 AM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 10:01, John Clark wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 5:51 PM Stathis Papaioannou
>> wrote:
>>
>> > *T**here is yet another level, phenomenal consciousness, which has no
>>> behavioural manifestations whatsoeve
On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:42 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 5:24 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> *> that fact is not central, despite the ramblings on Wikipedia.*
>>
>
> It is my experience that when a debate opponent resorts to disparageing
> the acc
On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:11 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 4:29 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> *>>> You don't have to be a mathematical realist to believe that adding
>>>> one apple to another apple in the bowl gives you two apples.*
>&g
On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 11:27 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 3, 2023 at 5:11 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> *> You don't have to be a mathematical realist to believe that adding one
>> apple to another apple in the bowl gives you two apples.*
>>
>
> But
On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 11:18 AM smitra wrote:
> On 24-11-2023 10:49, Brent Meeker wrote:
> >
> > That doesn't seem to get rid of probability. How will you empirically
> > confirm that you need less information to specify X than Y. You will
> > still need frequentist statistics.
>
> That's true
On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 8:56 AM Jason Resch wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 3, 2023, 4:40 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>> I don't think the Born rule is implied by MWI; but it's already known to
>> be the only rational way to define a probability measure on a Hilbert space
>> (Gleason's theorem). So in a sense
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 12:46 PM Jason Resch wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 8:39 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 11:59 AM Jason Resch
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 7:17 PM Bruce Kellett
>>> wrote:
>>>
>&g
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 12:34 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 11/29/2023 4:17 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 11:59 AM Jason Resch wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 7:17 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett
>>> wrote:
>>
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>> The Born rule allows you to calculate the probabilit
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 11:32, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:25 AM Stathis Papaioannou
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 11:17, Bruce Kellett
>>> wrote:
>>
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:25 AM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 11:17, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:13 AM Stathis Papaioannou
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 10:53, Bruce Kellett
>>> wrote:
>>
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:13 AM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 10:53, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:40 AM Stathis Papaioannou
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 09:34, Bruce Kellett
>>> wrote:
>
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:40 AM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 09:34, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:29 AM John Clark wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:14 PM Bruce Kellett
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>&
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:25 AM Jason Resch wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 5:12 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>> On 11/28/2023 1:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 4:55 PM Brent Meeker
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/28/2023 1:33 PM, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:22
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:41 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:34 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> >> The probability that Bruce Kellett will see N spin-ups is indeed one.
>>> However the probability that you will see N spin-ups is not. As I
>>>
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:35 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:28 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> *> Everettians have to derive the Born rule *
>
>
> Nobody needs to derive the Born rule because we know from experiment that
> it's true, a quantum
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:29 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:14 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> *> Given a long series of N spin measurements, MWI says that there is
>> always one person who sees N spin-ups. Since this observation is certain,
>> it h
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:21 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:08 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> *> the Born Rule is a necessary additional hypothesis in order to connect
>> the theory with experiment.*
>>
>
> True, and for that reason theory does
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:10 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:00 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> *> John is doing a lot of flailing around in an attempt to avoid the
>> question of where the Born Rule comes from, and the fact that it is
>> actually
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:07 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:55 PM Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
> >> If you're an engineer and are only interested in finding the correct
>>> answer to a given problem then Shut Up And Calculate works just fine.
>>> MWI is only needed if you're curiou
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:58 AM Jason Resch wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 4:55 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>> On 11/28/2023 1:33 PM, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:22 PM Brent Meeker
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That is incorrect. Schrodinger's equation, the thing that generates
the
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:55 AM Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 11/28/2023 1:33 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:22 PM Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
>> That is incorrect. Schrodinger's equation, the thing that generates the
>>> complex wave function, says nothing, absolutely nothing, abou
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 12:05 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 8:07 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> >> There are a googolplex number of Bruce Kelletts, all of which are in
>>> very slightly different quantum states but they all observe that, although
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 9:55 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 5:35 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> >>>
>>>> *and how do they instantiate the probabilities that we measure.*
>>>>
>>>
>>> >> There is one observer for
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 7:19 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 2:52 PM Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
> >> Copenhagen does not explain why some are more real than others, Many
>>> Worlds says the obvious answer to this dilemma is that they are all equally
>>> real, so there is nothing that
On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 1:48 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 5:36 AM Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
> * > Let's review the bidding John. I said the classical world was
>> necessary to science*
>>
>
> And if that's all you had said we wouldn't be having an argument, but you
> insisted th
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 7:32 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 1:22 PM Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> *> Depends what you mean by "couldn't be true"--my understanding is that
>> Einstein's EPR paper was just asserting that there must be additional
>> elements of reality beyond the quantum d
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 3:26 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
> There seems to be a conflation between the multiple worlds of Everett and
> the eternal inflation of a multiverse.
>
It has been suggested that the cosmic multiverse and the quantum multiverse
of Everett are the same thing. But I think that t
On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 9:12 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 12:38 AM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> The violation of Bell's Inequality proves that things are not realistic
>>> or not local or both,
>>>
>>
>> *> I have said that and
On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 12:59 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 10:34 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> *>>> The Bell inequality can be derived without assuming realism*
>>>
>>>
>>> >> Everybody is wrong from time to time, but some
On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 12:14 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 7:40 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> *> The Bell inequality can be derived without assuming realism*
>
>
> Everybody is wrong from time to time, but some people just can't admit it.
>
>
On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 9:31 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 7:06 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> >> Huh? How can you "*have **read quite extensively on Bell's theorem and
>>> locality*" and not know that Bell's theorem is a test to se
On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:34 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 8:14 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 12:02 AM smitra wrote:
>>
>
>
> >> Bell's theorem is about local hidden variables theories
>>
>>
>> &g
On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 12:02 AM smitra wrote:
> On 04-09-2023 01:35, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 11:37 AM smitra wrote:
> >
> >> The time evolution according to
> >> the Schrödinger equation is manifestly local,
> >
> > But
On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 7:15 PM 'scerir' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> *local, non-local, separable, non-separable, causes, correlations,
> influences, physical speed limit, speed of quantum influences, space-time,
> out of space-time, many worlds, many physical w
On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 5:41 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 7:54 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> *> Special relativity merely forbids the transmission of anything
>> 'physical' faster than light (FTL). It is easily possible to transfer
>&g
On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 9:58 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 3:43 AM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> *> You appear to agree that Bell's theorem, given its assumptions, shows
>> that no local hidden variable account of these correlations is possible.*
>
On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 11:37 AM smitra wrote:
> On 31-08-2023 06:08, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> > That is all very well, but it is not a local account of violations of
> > the Bell inequalities. You merely claim that the local theory is such
> > an account, but you do no
On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 10:26 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 6:29 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> *> OK. So spell out your non-realist, but local, many worlds account of
>> the violations of the Bell inequalities. It seems that you want it both
>> ways
On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 10:07 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 7:24 AM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> *>> Well of course it isn't! Bell's Inequality has been experimentally
>>> shown to be violated, so if there are hidden variables they can&#
On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 9:12 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 12:09 AM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> *>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 12:27 PM smitra >> > wrote:*
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
&g
On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 12:27 PM smitra wrote:
> There is no problem here because in practice MWI is nothing more than
> the usual QM formalism to compute the outcome of experiments where you
> then assume that the ensemble of all possible outcomes really exists.
> Locality then follows from the
The many worlds idea has already been falsified because it cannot account
for the observed violation of the Bell inequalities for entangled
particles. MWI is supposedly a local theory -- where is the local account
of the correlations of entangled particles?
Bruce
On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 12:39 AM
On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 4:34 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 12/28/2022 9:01 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 3:29 PM Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
>> Of course one reason there are "laws of physics" is what my late friend
>> Vic Stenger called Po
On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 3:29 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
> Of course one reason there are "laws of physics" is what my late friend
> Vic Stenger called Point Of View Invariance. This was his generalization
> of Emmy Noether's theorem that showed every symmetry implied a conservation
> law.
>
That is
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 9:49 AM Brent Meeker wrote:
> I think the important point is that probability theory is just
> mathematics, like calculus or linear algebra. It has applications in which
> it is given different interpretations: frequentism, degree of belief,
> measure, decision theory, et
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 3:57 PM Jesse Mazer wrote:
> What about the idea of grounding the notion of probability in terms of the
> frequency in the limit of a hypothetical infinite series of trials, what
> philosophers call "hypothetical frequentism"? The Stanford Encyclopedia of
> Philosophy disc
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 1:05 PM smitra wrote:
> On 22-11-2022 02:45, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 12:12 PM smitra wrote:
> >
> >> The problem lies with the notion of probability, he explains here
> >> that
> >> it cannot refer to
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 12:44 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 11/21/2022 4:38 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 11:35 AM Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
>>
>> But frequencies are how we test probabilistic theories.
>>
>
> Testing is not a theoreti
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 12:12 PM smitra wrote:
> The problem lies with the notion of probability, he explains here that
> it cannot refer to anything in the physics world as an exact statement:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzSE4Hoxbc&t=1036s
>
> That's then a problem for a fundamental the
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 11:35 AM Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 11/21/2022 4:33 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 11:08 AM Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
>> He's wrong that frequentism does not empirically support probability
>> statements. He goes off on
quencies might approximate the probabilities, but they cannot
be used to ground probability theory -- for well known reasons. I agree
that he goes off on a number of irrelevant tangents, and he is wrong to
suppose that frequentism is a main-stream theory of probability (at least,
these days).
Bruce
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 10:34 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 7:29 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> *> The experimenter is just one copy*
>
>
> And that pinpoints the error in your logic right there.
>
> *> Many worlds does not explain why I, fo
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 2:52 AM smitra wrote:
> Probability cannot be a fundamental concept in physics as explained
> here:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzSE4Hoxbc
I'm afraid Deutsch is a bit too glib in this lecture. He hasn't, despite
his best efforts, removed probability from physics
On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 3:21 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
> I agree with that, since I think collapse or probability is necessary for
> the theory to work. But I regard it all as one unified theory. As Omnes
> writes, "QM is a probabilistic theory. So it predicts probabilities."
>
The problem is th
On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 1:42 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> On 10/28/2022 6:43 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> Look, "ad hoc" is frequently bandied about as a fatal flaw in any theory.
> Just as Putin waves about the nuclear threat: this is just to intimidate
> the oppositi
On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 11:51 AM Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 10/28/2022 5:43 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 11:37 AM Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/28/2022 5:28 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 10:54 AM Brent Meeker
&g
On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 11:37 AM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> On 10/28/2022 5:28 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 10:54 AM Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10/28/2022 4:38 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 10:27 AM B
On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 10:54 AM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> On 10/28/2022 4:38 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 10:27 AM Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10/28/2022 3:06 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>>
>> Simply saying that QM a
On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 10:27 AM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> On 10/28/2022 3:06 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
>
> Simply saying that QM as traditionally formulated considers measurement
>> as a special process that os irreversible, doesn't cut it, because
>> measurement
On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 3:16 AM smitra wrote:
> On 26-10-2022 01:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> > The laws of physics tell us that measurements are irreversible.
> > Unitary evolution is universal only in your imagination. Many Worlds
> > is an interpretation,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 10:17 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 6:55 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> *> You can delay the choice as to whether or not to utilize the
>> information about which slit the particle went through until long after
>> that
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 9:02 AM John Clark wrote:
> Then after the electron passes through the slits but before it hits the
> photographic plate the witch-way information is erased. So when the
> photographic plate is developed and if you see interference bands then you
> know there must be other
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 10:32 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 7:01 AM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> *> In all cases, if the which-way information is preserved, no
>>>> interference is seen. *
>>>
>>>
>>> True.
>>
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 9:34 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 7:37 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> *> In all cases, if the which-way information is preserved, no
>> interference is seen. *
>
>
> True.
>
> *> But if the which-way informa
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 4:46 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 10/25/2022 4:36 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 10:01 AM John Clark wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 6:43 PM Bruce Kellett
>> wrote:
>>
> I think you need to do some research on d
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 10:15 AM smitra wrote:
> On 26-10-2022 00:14, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> There is no such thing as irreversible decoherence in unitary QM. Now,
> you and Brent have invoked the expansion of the universe in past
> discussions to argue that fundamental
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 10:01 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 6:43 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> >> If no which-way measurement has been made then how do you explain the
>>> document that swears that such a measurement HAD been made?
>>
>>
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 9:32 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 6:14 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> *> That is as much mumbo-jumbo as anything in Copenhagen. For instance,
>> what determines if the difference between the worlds is small 'enough'?*
>
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 9:00 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 5:31 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> *> One of the main troubles with this is that the Copenhagen
>> Interpretation, insofar as there is any such thing, does not entail that
>> the wave functio
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 5:41 AM John Clark wrote:
>
> There is no way to falsify the conventional Copenhagen interpretation,
> but back in 1986 in his book "*The Ghost in the Atom*" David Deutsch
> proposed a way to falsify Everett's Many Worlds; the experiment would be
> difficult to perform but
I was gratified to hear of this Nobel award:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-04/three-quantum-information-scientists-share-nobel-prize-physics/101501766
Aspect and Clauser certainly deserve it for going out on a limb and proving
an important result. Zeilinger was late to the party, but his gr
On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 12:10 PM Jesse Mazer wrote:
> Are you defining "process" as a *pattern* of behavior which can be
> duplicated with different bits of matter, or as something that refers to
> some specific bits of matter, so that reversing a process would require
> doing it to the same bits
separate processes that look like the
original process in reverse.
This is important in the context of unitary evolution in quantum mechanics.
Unitary time evolution obeys time symmetric laws, but the emission of a
photon into an expanding universe, while consistent with unitary evolution,
is not a reve
On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 7:54 AM Jesse Mazer wrote:
> Why do you say it's irreversible in principle? Wouldn't the time-reverse
> of that just be a photon traveling towards an atom and being absorbed,
> which is permitted by the laws of physics given a different set of initial
> boundary conditions?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 12:01 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
> Read this and contemplate how LaMDA would have fared?
> https://twitter.com/JanelleCShane/status/1535835610396692480
>
I suspect that on an honest trial, lambda would not have fared very much
better.
Bruce
--
You received this message bec
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 8:21 AM John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 5:33 PM Terren Suydam
> wrote:
>
> *> I'm not accusing Lemoine of fabricating this. But what assurances could
>> be provided that it wasn't? I couldn't help notice that Lemoine does refer
>> to himself as an ex-convic
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 5:57 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 1:54 PM Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
> On 4/25/2022 9:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>
>
>
> >> It doesn't matter what you use, you're going to need an energy
>>> calibration standard because there's just no way to measure the abs
On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 5:53 PM smitra wrote:
> On 15-05-2022 09:30, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 5:11 PM smitra wrote:
> >
> >> On 15-05-2022 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >>> On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 1:17 AM smitra wrote:
> >>
On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 5:11 PM smitra wrote:
> On 15-05-2022 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 1:17 AM smitra wrote:
> >
> >> The big advantage is that decoherence is a well researched area of
> >> (mathematical) physics, results
On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 1:17 AM smitra wrote:
> On 13-05-2022 21:59, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> > Right CI doesn't explain the collapse and MWI doesn't explain the
> > collapse either but assumes it can be explained without new physics.
> > I hypothesize (not assume) that CI+ can
> > explain the co
On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 5:03 AM Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 4:35 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
>
> The trouble is that the duplicating machine makes only one copy, so there
> is one for Moscow and one for Helsinki. There are no multiple copies in the
> original scenario. C
On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 9:19 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 10:41 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> >> After my body has been duplicated but before I have open the door of
>>> the duplicating chamber to see where I was I won't know if I will be
>&g
On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 12:06 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 9:46 PM Stathis Papaioannou
> wrote:
>
> *>>> Explaining the values of the probabilities isn't the problem with
MWI, it's explaining that there are probabilities*
>>>
>>>
>>> >> That's easy in MWI. Probabilities e
On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 5:51 AM smitra wrote:
> On 12-05-2022 22:18, Brent Meeker wrote:
> >
> > I agree. And in fact SE fails all the time. It fails to predict a
> > definite outcome...which is OK if you accept probabilistic theories.
>
> Physics doesn't work in this way. You always need to de
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 5:22 AM smitra wrote:
> On 12-05-2022 00:44, Brent Meeker wrote:
> > On 5/11/2022 1:06 PM, smitra wrote:
> >
> >> There is effective collapse in experiments we do, but the
> >> experiments nevertheless demonstrate that the fundamental processes
> >> proceed under unitary t
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 5:57 AM smitra wrote:
> On 12-05-2022 01:36, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 9:24 AM smitra wrote:
> >
> >> On 11-05-2022 07:30, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >>> Who proved that the universe was finite?
> >>
>
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 9:08 AM smitra wrote:
> On 11-05-2022 08:14, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 3:39 PM Brent Meeker
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/10/2022 9:43 PM, smitra wrote:
> >>
> >>> If there are only a finite number
1 - 100 of 2461 matches
Mail list logo
