Hi Everythingers,
Though I am new to the list I have been reading your fascinating posts
on this troubling issue of reality and subjectivity
so please pardon if I skip the protocol and delve into the discussion
right away. I have a background in computer
and cognitive science if you want to
Hi Lee,
Lee Corbin writes:
Godfrey writes
Hi Everythingers,
Though I am new to the list I have been reading your fascinating
posts
on this troubling issue of reality and subjectivity
so please pardon if I skip the protocol and delve into the discussion
right away. I have a background
Lee,
Bruno may not be very articulate and I may never forgive myself
for trying to answer for him but I think he is clear enough about
this:
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-Original Message-
From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Cc:
Hi George,
I see your point. Brandon Carter expressed recently the same idea, it
seams, when noting that Quantum Mechanics
suggests to him that objective reality is NOT a realistic objective.
Perhaps, but that hardly implies that subjective
reality is any more realistic as an scientific
Hi George,
Still trying to understand you but having trouble holding my
disbelieve...
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
Hi Godfrey
The I that I consider consists of a logical system that defines and
coincides with the physical system that the I inhabits. Thus the
world (the slice of
Hi George,
Thanks for the clarifications. Let me see if I understand you better.
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-Original Message-
From: George Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[GL]
I am sorry I was sloppy in my explanation. Let me try to be clearer.
I is the kernel of consciousness. It
Hi Saibal,
Yes, trans-Plankian physics is likely to be quite different from our
cis-plankian
one. However I think the main reason 't Hooft claims the no-go
theorems of
quantum physics are in small print is because his reading glasses
are no
longer current :-), I am afraid. His arguments
Hi Bruno,
Thanks for your answers. I follow you in passing on our points of
agreement (and erasing them).
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Hi Godfrey,
I see we agree on many things. I comment only where we take distance.
Hi Lee,
As much as I sympathise with your call for preservation of naive
realism
and agree entirely with your opinion on the demerits of introspection
I have to take issue with half of what you say below:
-Original Message-
From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
I'm not too sure
Hi Bruno,
Thanks for indulging my skepticism. I think I am getting a clearer
picture of what you are up to. There is only one
point in our exchange below to which I would like to respond and than
I have some unrelated comments. I will
erase the rest of the conversation to which I don't
Hi Bruno,
Thanks for your assent on this. I am sure that CT and AR are needed,
at some point, for your really outrageous
conclusions. But I am sure you agree that they cannot save them if the
Yes doctor presumption can be shot
down by itself. Right? This would save me from having to read
From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Godfrey writes
As much as I sympathize with your call for preservation of naive
realism
[LC]
Good heavens! How many times must it be said? What is going on
with people? There is a *clear* definition of naive realism.
Try the almost always extremely
Hi Bruno,
It is maybe time to change the name of the thread. But I'll get to
that below.
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:41:12 +0200
Subject: Re:
Hi Serafino,
I did not even mention probabilities and you are very right
that they do not operate under the same algebraic rules
as classical probabilities.
My point, if I can break it down a bit, is that the amplitudes
correspond, not to things but to processes and that what
the amplitudes let
Serafino,
I think I get the gist of what you are saying but it is not quite
the case. There is no energy flux directly associated with
wave-functions (like with electomagnetic or mechanical waves)
but is a probability density and a probability flux associated with
the square of linear
Hi Hal,
From what you say below I am not able to determine whether your model
is identical or
distinct from Bruno's in the only point that I am interested in so let
me ask you:
Is your model falsified if YD is false or can you still dance if
that is the case?
I am asking because
Hi Bruno,
OK. I think we are making progress. I will start the other thread
after this message
as I don't really have more obvious divergences from you and you are
kind enough
to indulge me in this little diversion. As before I will erase the
obvious points of
agreement below...
Godfrey
Dear Quentin,
Je m'excuse. It is not my intension to insult anyone least of all you
since I don't quite remember having directed any message to you
personally!
I have used some irony in discussing with Bruno but meant no harm by
it.
My feeling from reading the different posts is that
Hi Saibal,
You are entirely correct about that. Non-local models can indeed
reproduce QM. No surprise than that all the remaining approaches to
the unification of physical theories still fighting it out (string/M
theories,
loop quantum gravity, twistor theory) are non-loca,l unlike the old
Hi Quentin,
No harm done. I think I understand your comment and I fully
agree that I sound like I am bluffing. But I still have hope that
Bruno will come to his senses and accept my bargain (which is
much less risky than the one his Doctor proposes, by the way!)
I take it that French is your
Hi Serafino,
Thanks for your pointers. You obvious know your
physics quite well and I think you got my point
precisely!
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-Original Message-
From: scerir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:22:10 +0200
Subject: Re: Naive
Hi Lee,
I am not sure this is the reply you mentioned in the
previous post. If so I guess you decided to make it
public. That is alright with me too.
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-Original Message-
From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat, 20 Aug 2005
Hi Bruno,
Not quite there yet, but making progress
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:44:44 +0200
Subject: Re: subjective reality
Le 19-août-05, à 18:13,
Hi Russell,
Touche' (:-)! I am going to claim a typo, on this one.
I will be more careful with my time from here on,
though come to think of it, 3.4 hours maybe
a good estimate on the time I manage to
dedicate to pure platonic contemplation
in a week, sadly...
Thanks for the humorous
Hi Bruno,
I guess I spoke too soon...
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:05:58 +0200
Subject: Re: subjective reality
Le 22-août-05, à 00:21, [EMAIL
been scooped...
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: kurtleegod; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:06:03 -0400
Subject: Re: subjective reality
Well, Godfrey, I just want to voice my reaction that I am
Hi Hal,
I am sorry I have not responded to you previously and I
thank you for the further clarifications your provide
about your theory. Sounds quite extraordinary but
unfortunately I don't feel I grasp it well enough
to make any useful comment as to its contents.
From what you say before it
-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 01:15:22PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Tom,
Than you can surely understand how disappointed I feel! It's even
more
like the hooka-smoking-Caterpillar
since Bruno pulled the mushroom right
Sorry Russell, Everyone
One of mys sentences got mangled in the middle in my last reply.
I meant to direct you to the recent book by
Aharonov, Y. and Rohrlich D.
Quantum Paradoxes: Quantum Theory for the Perplexed.
Hi Bruno,
I might have partly answered your query in my response to
Russell. I am not sure.
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 12:55:07 +0200
Subject: Re:
Hi Russell,
Thanks for the clarification on the White Rabbit issue.
That is helpful.
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, 24
Hi Hal,
Just a minimal comment to what you state below.
I erase a bit of the previous exchange.
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-Original Message-
From: Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:33:45 -0400
Subject: Re: subjective reality
Hi
-Original Message-
From: Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 14:15:43 -0400
Subject: Re: subjective reality
Hi Godfrey:
At 12:03 PM 8/24/2005, you wrote:
Hi Hal,
Just a minimal comment to what you state below.
I erase a bit of the previous
Hi Hal,
I am not sure I can give you much feed back on what you advance below
because these go
well beyond the little I understand about these questions of
metaphysics. In general I think you can
strech some of conventional definitions in order to find out where
that gets you but if you
Hi Serafino,
I am not sure I can give you a decent answer to your
query since I am not an Everrettista myself and so a lot
of their subtleties escape me. But I think they would
probably remind you that they believe that superpositions
only give way to more superpositions so that, after each
Hi Serafino,
I am not familiar with Rubin's papers but I know Clifton's
and I think you are indeed right. Bell wrote the most enlightening
observations about Everettiana and I think he correctly pin down
that it is akin to a (contextual) hidden-variable interpretation when
you try and extract
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com; Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 16:53:41 +0200
Subject: Re: subjective reality
Sorry for answering late, but I got some hardware problem.
On 23 Aug 2005, at 16:44, [EMAIL
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:31:08 +0200
Subject: Re: subjective reality
[BM]
I do think so. See Deutsch book which make clear that the MWI is
based on comp. But it is
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:37:34 +0200
Subject: Re: subjective reality
On 29 Aug 2005, at 16:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[GK]
Because you referred me to Deutsch's book I too
Hi Russell,
Still have not had a chance to look up your book
but hope to do so shortly.
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:44:00
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:01:42 +0200
Subject: Re: subjective reality
On 29 Aug 2005, at 18:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[GK]
You ARE doing something speculative whether you
Bruno,
I don't quite follow Colin's objections to your derivation but since
you
mention me here I have to point out that he clearly read a lot more
of it than I ever did. So you are being unfair in comparing us in this.
He also appears a lot more annoyed with you than I am...
Godfrey Kurtz
Hi Russell
Thanks for your lucid comments. Maybe you are a better advocate
of Bruno's than Bruno himself...
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed,
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:47:38 +0200
Subject: Re: subjective reality
On 30 Aug 2005, at 18:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[GK]
Just to show you I am not mean spirited may I
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:55:07 +0200
Subject: Re: Kaboom
On 30 Aug 2005, at 18:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (GK, Godfrey) wrote:
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:08:16 +0200
Subject: Re: subjective reality
On 30 Aug 2005, at 18:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[GK]
Speculation
-Original Message-
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:12:43 -0700
Subject: Re: subjective reality
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Hi Hal,
Thanks for your clarifying comment. Yes I think
that is the basis of my objection to Bruno and I
am glad someone has gotten it!
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-Original Message-
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, 30 Aug 2005
Hi Saibal, Norman
I did not mean to intervene but so that my name is not
called in vain (:-) I would like to mention that, yes, I read
Tegmark's paper and enjoyed it much though I could not
help but notice that, though he promises, he never gets
to Level IV (my favorite) on this paper, to my
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 14:47:17 +0200
Subject: Re: subjective reality
On 31 Aug 2005, at 17:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brent MeekerWhy do you think YD is
Hi Norman,
Thanks for the kudos. I have to agree with you that
Tegmark is not very convincing in his move to center his
multiverse construction on inflation. Even if inflation has
to be a quantum process I don't see the advantage
of pinning it to a ManyWorld scenario since it is unlikely
there
51 matches
Mail list logo
