Re: NYTimes.com: A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong

The article at https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/04/dark-energy-might-not-be-constant-after-all/ says: 'One alternative theory proposes that the universe may be filled with a fluctuating form of dark energy dubbed “quintessence.” There are also several other alternative models that assume the

Re: Irrational mechanics, draft Ch. 14

On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 12:26 AM Giulio Prisco wrote: > > > In Chapter 8 I argued that the cosmic operating system is not less > than personal, but more than personal. If the cosmic operating system > is super alive, super conscious and super intelligent, then cosmic > operating system = God. >

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

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 description (for example, that correlations between distant particles could be explained in terms of extra unseen

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

06 PM John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 12:38 PM Jesse Mazer wrote: > > *> Whether violations of Leggett-Garg inequalities rule out nonlocal >> realistic theories seems to be a matter of definition, the inequality is >> violated in Bohmian mechanics which

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

Whether violations of Leggett-Garg inequalities rule out nonlocal realistic theories seems to be a matter of definition, the inequality is violated in Bohmian mechanics which is often referred to as a nonlocal realistic theory, see the discussion on p. 12 of https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.6139.pdf --

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

I also think superdeterminism is "local" only on a technicality. If one is looking at the general class of superdeterminist theories rather than just the specific subset designed to reproduce quantum mechanical statistics, one could easily come up with a superdeterminist theory that allowed for

Re: Have huge stars powered by Dark Matter been discovered?

dark matter that has extremely weak interactions and > self-interactions would never have been in thermal equilibrium, which is > a possible loophole out of this no-go argument. > > Saibal > > On 10-08-2023 01:42, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > Does the idea that col

Re: Have huge stars powered by Dark Matter been discovered?

Does the idea that colliders should have already found WIMPs depend on the "naturalness" idea at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalness_(physics) which requires supersymmetric particles at those energies in order to solve the "hierarchy problem", or are there independent reasons to think that

Re: what chatGPT is and is not

On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 9:34 AM Terren Suydam wrote: > > > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 7:09 AM Jason Resch wrote: > >> As I see this thread, Terren and Stathis are both talking past each >> other. Please either of you correct me if i am wrong, but in an effort to >> clarify and perhaps resolve this

Re: what chatGPT is and is not

On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 11:37 PM Terren Suydam wrote: > > > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 11:13 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 10:48, Terren Suydam >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 8:42 PM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote: >>> On Tue,

Re: More evidence that environmentalists are NOT serious people

The first three stories are about environmentalists protesting building wind/solar on land that it's important to indigenous groups or important habitats for endangered species (the second headline is also misleading, Thunberg herself wasn't involved with the Wyoming protest); in order to show

Re: NYTimes.com: Will a Chatbot Write the Next ‘Succession’?

ass along strategies), that would be strong evidence that it has human-like understanding of the ideas it talks about, based on internal models like we have. On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 9:16 PM stathisp wrote: > > > On Sunday, 30 April 2023 at 10:29:20 UTC+10 Jesse Mazer wrote: > >

Re: NYTimes.com: Will a Chatbot Write the Next ‘Succession’?

I think there is plenty of evidence that GPT4 lacks "understanding" in a human-like sense, some good examples of questions that trip it up in this article: https://medium.com/@shlomi.sher/on-artifice-and-intelligence-f19224281bee The first example they give is the question 'Jack and Jill are

Re: ChatGPT avheives enlightenment

I would say it doesn't advocate the position as well as a good human debater would, for example the idea of building "playgrounds or parks" on highways doesn't make much physical sense, and there is nothing indicates it has an understanding of the obvious problems like talking about how cars could

Re: Ethan Siegel the star gazer says that despite dark matter the universe ain't expanding faster

Ethan Siegel just seems to be using non-standard terminology here to express the same results that have been known for a long time--he says that what he means is that "the expansion rate — also known as the Hubble constant/parameter — still decreases" even though "each individual object that’s

Re: Death, science, and politics

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 4:07 PM spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > Has there been deaths from the vaccinations? I don't know? All I say is, > let's have a look? > That doesn't seem like a good question to ask if we're thinking about policy, any

Re: Death, science, and politics

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 1:48 PM Dylan Distasio wrote: > I'd point out that the large majority of people in the US now have > concerns over these particular vaccines based on how public health policy > has been conducted over the last 2+ years. You may be disappointed to > find out that it's

Re: Death, science, and politics

On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 12:53 PM spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > We shall see about hypersonic weapons, just know that Joey is responding > in kind. > > Yes, you and the Christians are opposed to my Brave New World approach to > birthing. It is however

Re: FW: [Consciousness-Online] Global warming

This is an apples-to-oranges comparison, you didn't give the source of your numbers but you seem to be giving an estimate for the *total* amount of carbon dioxide contributed by forest fires over the last 5000 years (not the average annual amount over that time period), and comparing it with the

Re: Frequentist theory of probability

There are a number of variants of frequentism, would you include hypothetical frequentism with a time-ordering? Namely, the idea that probability should be understood in terms of a hypothetical scenario where we could do an unending number of trials, such that if the frequency of some outcome in

Re: Hubble's Constant

The wiki page on the Hubble parameter also says in the section at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#Time-dependence_of_Hubble_parameter that the expansion seems to be accelerating in such a way that the first derivative of the scale factor a(t) is increasing over time but the Hubble

Re: Physics Without Probability

One result that might lend itself to a hypothetical frequentist take on QM probabilities is discussed by David Z Albert on p. 237-238 of the book The Cosmos of Science, those pages can be read at https://books.google.com/books?id=_HgF3wfADJIC=PP1=PA238#v=onepage=false . He considers a scenario

Re: Physics Without Probability

a complete infinite series of trials even though this is explicitly a "hypothetical" definition? On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 12:37 AM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 3:57 PM Jesse Mazer wrote: > >> What about the idea of grounding the notion of probability

Re: Physics Without Probability

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 discussion of this at

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

If vacuum energy has some positive value x in the context of general relativity, and the casimir effect can have a region go below vacuum energy by more than x, from what I understand it should then qualify as negative energy in a relativistic context. I once asked about this on an online physics

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 9:41 AM John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 7:25 PM wrote: > > >> *> Setting aside relativity for the nonce, the workability of >> transversable wormholes is getting more, >> better! https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.104024 >>

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 11:21 AM John Clark wrote: > > > I don't understand the question, if they're both accelerating at the same > rate then they're in the same reference frame. > There is no single canonical way to define an accelerating object's non-inertial "reference frame" in relativity

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

It depends what you mean by "valid". Certainly all the physical laws of relativity such as time dilation can be expressed in a non-inertial coordinate system, like Rindler coordinates. But the equations expressing these laws will not be the same in non-inertial coordinate systems, for example you

Re: Is Special Relativity valid for accelerating frames of reference? TY.

The article says they're referring to Einstein-Rosen bridges, which are unstable wormholes that don't require negative energy, unlike the stable traversable wormholes (for traversable wormholes, Kip Thorne originally proposed that the required negative energy might be possible in quantum mechanics

Re: Strangelets

Isn't the theory that the decay time is too long for it to have happened to any significant degree in the lifetime of the universe, outside of high-pressure regions like neutron stars? The wikipedia article on strange matter says 'If the "strange matter hypothesis" is true then nuclear matter is

Re: The code for AGI will be simple

On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 8:26 AM smitra wrote: > So, I think insect-level AGI will cause a rapid transition to a machine > civilization. This will lead to a new biology of machines with insect > level intelligence ending up wiping out all life on Earth due to > pollution, similar to the great

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

wrote: > On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 6:47 PM Jesse Mazer wrote: > > *> But when physicists say that a given system's dynamics are "reversible" >> doesn't this generally involve an appeal to different initial boundary >> conditions?* >> > > If at the time of th

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

; conclude, based on present theory, that time is strictly irreversible, that > is, IRREVERSIBLE IN PRINCIPLE. AG > > On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:35:18 PM UTC-6 Bruce wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 12:10 PM Jesse Mazer wrote: >> >>> Are you defining &qu

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

sion of the behavior of the first system. On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 7:44 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 9:29 AM Jesse Mazer wrote: > >> "The time invariance of the laws means that a photon coming in from outer >> space is consistent with the laws. But that cannot be

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

first one. On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 8:18 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > I'm pointing out that in some cases creating the reverse boundary > conditions is impossible in principle because they are at infinity. > > Brent > > On 8/5/2022 3:47 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > But when ph

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

that its subsequent behavior looks like a reversed version of its initial behavior, that's just a misunderstanding of the concept. On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 7:14 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 7:54 AM Jesse Mazer wrote: > >> Why do you say it's irreversible in prin

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

reversible/irreversible in a more colloquial sense? On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 5:57 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > That's why I wrote, "The arrow of time comes from the boundary condition." > > Brent > > On 8/5/2022 2:54 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > Why do you say it's irr

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

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 Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 5:10 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > If

Re: was China, Now perpetual motion

anytime you see a tweet with some hard-to-believe info you should check the replies--people point out that it's a CG animation, originally from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTJvpRml5kM (and if you plug the first line of the youtube video description into google translate, it says "it's CG") On

Re: WOW, it looks like the technological singularity is just about here!

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 3:59 PM John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 2:37 PM Jesse Mazer wrote: > > First, an update: I looked a little more into the info that Lemoine put out and was able to confirm that even if LaMDA's individual responses to prompts are unedited, the choice

Re: WOW, it looks like the technological singularity is just about here!

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 1:37 PM John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 12:18 PM Jesse Mazer wrote: > > *> In the transcript at >> https://cajundiscordian.medium.com/is-lamda-sentient-an-interview-ea64d916d917 >> <https://cajundiscordian.medium.com/is-

Re: WOW, it looks like the technological singularity is just about here!

In the transcript at https://cajundiscordian.medium.com/is-lamda-sentient-an-interview-ea64d916d917 there are also plenty of responses that suggest imitation of what types of responses a human might be expected to give to a question, rather than speaking consistently from its own unique AI

Re: WOW, it looks like the technological singularity is just about here!

In Scott Aaronson's comments, someone says they gave GPT-3 the same initial prompts and later lines and got similar answers: https://twitter.com/boazbaraktcs/status/1536167996531556354 An author of a book on AI tried prompting GPT-3 with cues to suggest it was secretly a squirrel, and it

Re: Trump and his best friend

John Baez notes in bullet point #3 and #4 at https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html that the calculation which yields a huge but finite value for vacuum energy (about 10^122 times larger than the value inferred from cosmological measurements, according to his numbers) involves some simplifying

Re: Energy is preserved in General Relativity

The paper has a section on what Gibbs considers to be "fallacies" about energy conservation in GR, and (4) concerns the argument that the only way to have energy conservation in general is to use pseudo-tensors. Gibbs responds that "It is in fact possible to generalise Noether’s theorem to work

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 11:50 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 2:34 PM Jesse Mazer wrote: > >> If you are looking to build a toy model showing how Bell inequality >> violations can be explained locally in a scenario where each measurement >> results

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

If you are looking to build a toy model showing how Bell inequality violations can be explained locally in a scenario where each measurement results in multiple local copies of the experimenter, there is no good reason to impose the restriction that a given measurement which can yield one of two

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 7:39 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 2/28/2022 3:39 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 6:12 PM Brent Meeker > wrote: > >> >> >> On 2/28/2022 1:12 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: >> >> Superdeterm

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 6:12 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 2/28/2022 1:12 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > Superdeterminism goes well beyond Laplacean determinism. Determinism is > just about the dynamical laws--if you know some "initial" state of the > universe at tim

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

Superdeterminism goes well beyond Laplacean determinism. Determinism is just about the dynamical laws--if you know some "initial" state of the universe at time T1, it says you can perfectly predict the state at a later time T2 (or an earlier time, in a time-symmetric theory). Superdeterminism is a

Re: A gravitational wave rocket

Do traversable wormholes only lead to violations of no-cloning if they allow for closed timelike curves, as discussed at https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/time-travel-via-wormhole-breaks-the-rules-of-quantum-mechanics ? If so, maybe there is the possibility that traversable wormholes

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 4:54 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 10:12 PM smitra wrote: > >> On 21-12-2021 22:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> > >> > In general, that is not true. When both Alice and Bob set their >> > polarizers randomly while the particles are in flight, the fact

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 1:12 AM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 4:40 PM Jesse Mazer wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 8:10 PM Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 11:53 AM Jesse Mazer >>> wrote: >>> >

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 8:10 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 11:53 AM Jesse Mazer wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 7:01 PM John Clark wrote: >> >>> Brent Meeker Wrote: >>> >>> *> Yes, it's empirically supported; So

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 7:01 PM John Clark wrote: > Brent Meeker Wrote: > > *> Yes, it's empirically supported; So's the Schroedinger equation. But >> it's part of the application of the Schroedinger equation. It's not in the >> equation itself. * > > > > I don't know what you mean by that.

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

When you say the MWI + Born rule "yields an unambiguous framework for a fundamental theory" are you assuming the idea of probability being equal to amplitude squared only applies to "measurements", or that it would somehow apply at all times in the MWI? If the former there would seem to be some

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

Yes, it's misleading for her to suggest the objections to superdeterminism are mainly about "killing free will", rather they're about the way the theory would need a strange "conspiracy" in the initial conditions of the universe to work. The idea is that if two entangled particles are sent out

Re: The James Webb telescope

Ridiculous apples-and-oranges comparison between power-hungry leaders of authoritarian political regimes like Hitler and Stalin and scientists like Galileo and Newton. How about Einstein, Darwin or Feynman, all of them nonbelievers in the Judeo-Christian God, would you consider them strident and

Re: sterile neutrinos nearly ruled out

But even if low energy SUSY is ruled out, isn't it possible that supersymmetric particles would exist but at much higher energies than the LHC can reach, and if so couldn't such particles still fill the role of WIMPs in dark matter theories? That's what I was saying about the landscape model in

Re: sterile neutrinos nearly ruled out

When you say "WIMPs are most likely ruled out" is that related to failure to find supersymmetric particles at LHC? (Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that many physicists hoped supersymmetry would solve the 'naturalness problem' of the weak energy scale in a way that required

Re: Dark-Matter Universe?

the interaction, or are you questioning the whole quantum field theory framework saying that different particles can only interact via specific exchange forces? On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 11:21 AM Philip Benjamin wrote: > [*Jesse Mazer*] > > “Lisa Randall's work doesn't say anything a

Re: Dark-Matter Universe?

Lisa Randall's work doesn't say anything about dark matter interacting with baryonic (normal) matter via the strong nuclear force or the electromagnetic force (the former is responsible for binding the nucleus of atoms together, the latter for electromagnetic radiation and chemical bonds), so the

Re: A question about relativity

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 3:04 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:37:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 1/30/2020 5:37 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 6:29:18 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, January

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

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 7:30 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 30 Oct 2018, at 14:21, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 8:58:30 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 29 Oct 2018, at 13:55, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, October 29, 2018 at

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 2/05/2016 1:31 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > wrote: > >> On 2/05/2016 7:52 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: >

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > No, I disagree. The setting *b* has no effect on what happens at a remote > location is sufficiently precise to encapsulate exactly what physicists > mean by locality. In quantum field theory, this is

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 2/05/2016 7:52 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > wrote: > >> That is a semantic matter. There is a problem

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > That is a semantic matter. There is a problem if one insists that > "non-local" means the propagation of a real physical influence (particle of > wave) faster-than-light. But "non-locality" in standard quantum

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 27/04/2016 4:13 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > wrote: > >> On 27/04/2016 3:22 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: &g

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 4/26/2016 10:29 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> > wrote: > >> >> >> On 4/26/2016 8:38

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 27/04/2016 3:22 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au > > wrote: > >> Your simulation assumes the quantum m

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 4/26/2016 8:38 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: > >> OK, let's say experimenter A measures particle 1, and experimenter B >> measures particle 2. Any given copy of particle 1 has a "

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Your simulation assumes the quantum mechanical results. In other words, it > assumes non-locality in order to calculate the statistics. Where does the > cos^2(theta/2) come from in your analysis? > The question

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 27/04/2016 1:13 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 6:45 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > wrote: > >> >> You think that "the state

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 6:45 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > You think that "the state of the other particle" refers to the quantum > state that would be assigned to B given only knowledge of the state of A > (as well as knowledge of how they were entangled originally).

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 26/04/2016 5:52 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:58 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > wrote: > >> >> >> I think you may have miss

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:58 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > I think you may have missed a salient feature of my little story about > mismatching. The point to which I wish to draw attention is that Alice and > Bob do not know that they are in an impossible world until

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 22/04/2016 2:46 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au > > wrote: > >> On 22/04/2016 12:53 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 22/04/2016 12:53 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > wrote: > >> >> >> The point here is that so

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 22/04/2016 5:17 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > wrote: > >> On 21/04/2016 1:34 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: &

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 21/04/2016 1:34 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > wrote: > >> So, the fact that these simulated result

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > So, the fact that these simulated results were supposed to have come from > an entangled singlet pair has not been used anywhere in your simulation. It > has only ever been used to link the copies of Alice and

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 19/04/2016 10:23 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > wrote: > >> >> The local mathemati

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 18/04/2016 5:00 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > wrote: > >> On 18/04/2016 2:53 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: &

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 18/04/2016 2:53 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > wrote: > >> On 18/04/2016 10:11 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: &

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 18/04/2016 10:11 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > wrote: > >> >> The future light cones

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > The future light cones of the observers will overlap at a time determined > by their initial separation, regardless of whether they send signals to > each other or not. > Of course, I never meant to suggest

Re: Non-locality and MWI

"A and B perform their measurements at spacelike separation, but each chooses the measurement orientation outside the light cone of the other. There are four possible combinations of results, corresponding to four worlds in the MWI: |+>|+'>, |+>|-'>, |->|+'>, and |->|-'>. Since each observer has a

Re: Anna Stubblefield

Isn't there a pretty strong consensus among the experts that "facilitated communication" is actually a Ouija board like phenomenon where the facilitator is actually determining all the letters through small muscle movements (the 'ideomotor effect'), whether consciously or subconsciously? >From

Re: MGA revisited paper

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, August 17, 2014, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/16/2014 10:16 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 16 August 2014 10:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/15/2014 4:34 PM,

Re: MGA revisited paper

On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, August 16, 2014 2:28:32 PM UTC+10, jessem wrote: On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 11:09 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/15/2014 5:30 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Russell

Re: MGA revisited paper

On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, August 16, 2014 11:26:08 PM UTC+10, jessem wrote: I think you're being misled by the particular example you chose involving addition, in general there is no principle that says finding the appropriate entry in a

Re: MGA revisited paper

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 09:41:00PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 8/14/2014 8:32 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 08:12:30PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: That does seem strange, but I don't know that it

Re: MGA revisited paper

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 11:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/15/2014 5:30 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 09:41:00PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 8/14/2014 8:32 PM, Russell

Re: CTM and the UDA (again!)

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:46 AM, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: On 23 July 2014 17:49, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: So, why not adopt a Tegmark-like view where a physical universe is *nothing more* than a particular abstract computation, and that can give us a well

Re: CTM and the UDA (again!)

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:13 PM, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: On 27 July 2014 17:27, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see why that should follow at all, as long as there are multiple infinite computations running rather than the UDA being the only one, I may

Re: CTM and the UDA (again!)

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:04 PM, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: On 27 July 2014 18:46, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: But when you say by this point in the argument, do you mean there was some earlier step that established some good *reasons* for why we should

Re: CTM and the UDA (again!)

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: HI Jesse, David, On 23 Jul 2014, at 18:49, Jesse Mazer wrote: Had some trouble following your post (in part because I don't know all the acronyms), but are you talking about the basic problem of deciding which

Re: CTM and the UDA (again!)

Had some trouble following your post (in part because I don't know all the acronyms), but are you talking about the basic problem of deciding which computations a particular physical process can be said to implement or instantiate? If so, see my post at

Re: The Higgs and SUSY vs the Multiverse

Hopefully someone with a better understanding of these things will comment, but I believe it has to do with what physicists call the hierarchy problem, here are some links for your perusal: http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-hierarchy-problem/

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >