Re: The physical limits of computation

to the lab and ask what's the > information content of "this". > > Brent > > On 1/19/2024 10:46 PM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: > > > > > Interesting quote about all that (and information) > > > > Frank Wilczek: "Information is

Re: The physical limits of computation

Interesting quote about all that (and information) Frank Wilczek: "Information is another dimensionless quantity that plays a large and increasing role in our description of the world. Many of the terms that arise naturally in discussions of information have a distinctly physical character.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

Mermin and Hartle wrote about "Now" https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/67/3/8/1017354/Commentary-What-I-think-about-Now? https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/67/9/8/414845/Classical-and-quantum-framing-of-the-Now? https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0403001 -- You received this

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

Just two links Tel-Aviv conference on MWI (2022), many videos https://www.mwi2022tau.com/ https://www.mwi2022tau.com/ On playing gods: The fallacy of the many-worlds interpretation https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.03467 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Bruce] Not really comparable. The probability of what ball you get is distinct from the fact that the ball exists. MWI is not a theory about what you will see. Any theory about that is necessarily a single world theory since you only see one ball. MWI is a theory about what exists, and its

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

It seems that, on page 270 of this paper, Feynman said something about Everett and his "universal wave-function" https://edition-open-sources.org/media/sources/5/Sources5.pdf s. __ See also Zeh here https://arxiv.org/abs/0804.3348 s. i -- You received this

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

This started with my point that we test, observer, infer, write papers, attend conferences, discuss and write down theories, all in a classical world. Everything we know about QM comes from observations, each of which is seeing a result, not a superposition of results. This is the basis of

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John] Using only classical concepts explain to me how and why the Quantum Eraser Experiment works. [Brent] The explanation is in print which is classical. [John] If you're right and an explanation of how and why the Quantum Eraser Experiment works that only uses classical concepts is in

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

realistic point of view, measurements are natural phenomena like any other, and should not by themselves cause a sudden interruption of the regular evolution in Nature. > Il 21/11/2023 18:12 +01 Jason Resch ha scritto: > > > > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023, 11:17 AM

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

Just an interesting quote. “The idea that they [measurement outcomes] be not alternatives but *all* really happen simultaneously seems lunatic to him [the quantum theorist], just *impossible*. He thinks that if the laws of nature took *this* form for, let me say, a quarter of an hour, we

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

According to John Bell, if A is one of the two wings of a typical Bell apparatus, i the observable to be measured in A and x its possible value, and if B is the other of the two wings, j is the observable to be measured in B and y its possible value, and if Lambda is the hidden-variable joint

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

> Il 04/09/2023 12:29 +01 Bruce Kellett ha scritto: > > No. The example was not particularly well thought out. My point is that > geometrical motions can exceed light velocity, and distant galaxies recede at > greater than light speed. Light speed limits only physical transmission, >

Re: Is Many Worlds Falsifiable?

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 worlds, what a mess Testing spooky action at a distance D. Salart

Re[2]: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

A deterministic clockwork universe vs a lawless universe (see Svozil, Arxiv,2000). I think QM is in between. -- Inviato da Libero Mail per Android Lunedì, 18 Aprile 2022, 02:35PM +02:00 da Alan Grayson agrayson2...@gmail.com : > > >On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 9:16:34 PM UTC-6

Re: Hossenfelder on superdeterminism

measurement error, are impossible. So, the original motivation for superdeterminism - saving locality, I guess - is not present in the picture of the world we get from it.) > Il 19/12/2021 11:09 Bruce Kellett ha scritto: > > > On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 7:59 PM 'scerir' via Eve

Re: Hossenfelder on superdeterminism

'Vague statements that the result obtained depends on the measurement made are either trivial or else meaningless without a developed quantum formalism that incorporates the requires hidden variables.' -Bruce Indeed. But somebody wrote something, in 1988.

Re: more books on quantum foundations

> > > > > > > > [scerir] But - since then - I'm in trouble. Maybe 'Quantum' is a > > language, nothing more than a language. Efficient? > > > > > [Bruno] If it is a language, the question is what does that

Re: more books on quantum foundations

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/#BookPhilQM > Il 09/03/2021 16:58 'scerir' via Everything List > ha scritto: > > > > Yes, d'Espagnat (with Jammer) was one of my very best, in the 70s. But - > since then - I'm in trouble. Maybe 'Quantum' is a language,

Re: more books on quantum foundations

Yes, d'Espagnat (with Jammer) was one of my very best, in the 70s. But - since then - I'm in trouble. Maybe 'Quantum' is a language, nothing more than a language. Efficient? > Il 09/03/2021 14:50 Bruno Marchal ha scritto: > > > > > > > On 15 Feb

Everett in the Heisenberg picture

https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.02328 -- 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, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the

papers on probabilities & MWI

just few links! https://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/6889/ http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/15798/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S135521980700024X http://users.ox.ac.uk/~everett/docs/Hemmo%20Pitowsky%20Quantum%20probability.pdf

Re: new book on foundations

AG, no unfortunately I did not read it. But I read, long time ago, that Heisenberg (and Dirac, and many more) was well aware of the main problem. That is to say the (physical meaning of) superposition and the (physical meaning of) projection postulate. So it is ... a long story! -serafino >

more books on quantum foundations

I hope these links work https://www.amazon.it/Conceptual-Foundations-Quantum-Mechanics/dp/0198844697/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_it_IT=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91=1=barrett+foundations=1613369653=8-1

new book on foundations

https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/foundations-of-quantum-mechanics/7D2F34BA2F54B51FBB33D557B2058D8E -- 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, send an email to

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

That's behind a paywall. Can you post a copy? Brent I hope it works http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~jabarret/bio/publications/ToBeAWorld.pdf -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

? It is a superposition, why not MWI? > Il 16/01/2021 13:25 Pierz Newton-John ha scritto: > > > > > On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 8:16 pm, 'scerir' via Everything List > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com > > wrote: > > > > > > Pierz wrot

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

"They show that MWI is inconsistent, in the Schroedinger picture. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00763476; the paper (pdf) is here: http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~jabarret/bio/publications/ToBeAWorld.pdf -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

Pierz wrote: "If you want to argue against the internal logic of MWI, you have to start by accepting what it proposes then proceeding to demonstrate how that leads to internal inconsistency." They show that MWI is inconsistent, in the Schroedinger picture.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

IMO the main quantum postulate is the following. 'Real experiments have results. Unperformed experiments have none.' (But we can create different postulates, and different theories. Only future experiments will tell ...) > Il 14/01/2021 04:42 Alan Grayson ha scritto: > > > > > On

Re[2]: Born's rule from almost nothing

Worlds, worlds. What are these worlds? When a pig observes a Young interferometer does this pig create worlds? Does this pig split worlds? Or not, because there is not full consciousness? And in Alpha Centauri,  where there are no pigs, no humans, no consciousness, no Young interferometers? No

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

Bruno writes: "It is a theorem. No universal machine can determine which computations run it, .. " Do we need a 'constructor theory'? That is to say a set of 'principles' under which we could show whether or not a 'universal constructor' can exist?

David Deutsch paper

Interesting paper by David Deutsch, on MWI. https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.02048 Already known maybe, but I was not aware of ... -- 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,

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

> Il 25/12/2020 07:29 Alan Grayson ha scritto: > > > Now I raise a similar question I posed to Bruce, thrice, with no replies. > Why does the unpredictability of measured values and the intrinsic randomness > protect relativity theory? This is really a huge conceptual leap. How would

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

m now talking religion, not science – a religion, however not opposed to science, but supported by what disinterested scientific research has brought to the fore." Erwin Schrödinger, Mind and Matter Chapter 4: The Arithmetical Paradox: The Oneness of Mind > Il 22/12/2020 21:14

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

AG asked: does randomness imply no-FTL-signaling? Let me ask: does determinism imply FTL-signaling? A is one of the two wings of a Bell apparatus i is the observable to be measured in A x is the possible value of i B is the other wing of a Bell apparatus j is the observable to be measured in B y

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: All the copies could be conscious or all could be zombies; none are privileged. "In truth there is only one mind. Oneness it is the doctrine of the Upanishads." As far as I remember Schroedinger wrote something like that. Does that "Oneness" could resolve our problem?

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

> MWI is incompatible with the Born Rule How do you figure that? It's easy enough. MWI from the Schrodinger equation says that every outcome happens, with probability one. The Born rule says that different outcomes have different probabilities. So MWI + Born gives two incompatible results

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

Uncontrollable signaling. https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/25643 > Il 20/12/2020 14:36 Alan Grayson ha scritto: > > > > > On Sunday, December 20, 2020 at 12:52:26 AM UTC-7 Bruce wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 5:57 PM

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

ptive choice. > > Brent > > On 12/19/2020 2:53 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: > > > > > > I think that Bohr might have said that we cannot know, because when > > we try to measure (or observe) something we perturb it, at the sam

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

I think that Bohr might have said that we cannot know, because when we try to measure (or observe) something we perturb it, at the same time. We - according to Bohr - cannot follow the causal course of a quantum through space-time. The important concept (Bohr) is "what we can *say* about

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.07068 Randomness? What randomness? Klaas Landsman https://arxiv.org/search/physics?searchtype=author=Landsman%2C+K > This is a review of the issue of randomness in quantum mechanics, with > special emphasis on its ambiguity; for example, randomness has different >

paper by D'Ariano, no quantum paradoxes

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-020-00398-6?fbclid=IwAR1_T-xMzYavf_FyyMdIb4iPyKrpzdqh2s3xYDK4w3hi8lvUDzC4uXznlMY -- 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

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

tto: > > > On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 6:55 PM 'scerir' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com > > wrote: > > > > > > Bruce: "The idea of a large ensemble of pre-existing worlds

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

Bruce: "The idea of a large ensemble of pre-existing worlds that just get distinguished by results has never been taken seriously by anyone outside of this list. It has never been worked through in detail, and it is doubtful if it even makes sense. It certainly has nothing to do with the

Re: The semantics of quantum mechanics, Copenhagen style

Il 6 giugno 2020 alle 14.13 Philip Thrift ha scritto: The best comment by a physicists (Associate Professor, Monash University) in the discussion thread: The wavefunction is not a physical thing - so whether it collapses is irrelevant. At least one physicist not brainwashed into the

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

<> “One may call these uncertainties [i.e. the Born probabilities] objective, in that they are simply a consequence of the fact that we describe the experiment in terms of classical physics; they do not depend in detail on the observer. One may call them subjective, in that they reflect our

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

I vaguely remember that von Weizsaecker wrote (in 'Zeit und Wissen') that probability is 'the expectation value of the relative frequency'. > Bruce wrote: > > It is this subjectivity, and appeal to Bayesianism, that I reject for QM. > I consider probabilities to be intrinsic properties --

Scientists “film” a quantum measurement (?)

https://www.su.se/english/research/research-news/scientists-film-a-quantum-measurement-1.487234 https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.080401 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

Physics and the Totalitarian Principle Helge Kragh https://arxiv.org/search/physics?searchtype=author=Kragh%2C+H (Submitted on 10 Jul 2019) https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.04623 > What is sometimes called the "totalitarian principle," a metaphysical > doctrine often associated with the famous

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

It seems to me that the best one can do is say that energy is conserved in each branch, even over splitting. That is, after all, what is observed. Consequently, the energy of the overall wave function is not conserved. This might cause some problems for the insistence on unitary evolution of

Re: The problem with physics

> Nevertheless, the SWE does not give a probability without some further > assumptions. Why do you think that MWI advocates spend so much time an effort > trying to derive the Born rule? You cannot get probabilities from the > Schroedinger equation without some additional assumptions. > >

Re: The problem with physics

> True about Schrödinger, but there are one world formulations in which > there is no wave function collapse, or no wave function at all to begin with. > > @philipthrift > “The idea that they [measurement outcomes] be not alternatives but all really happen simultaneously seems

Re: The problem with physics

> Il 15 novembre 2019 alle 11.57 Alan Grayson ha > scritto: > > > > On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 3:48:44 AM UTC-7, scerir wrote: > > > > > > > > > Il 14 novembre 2019 alle 23.25 Alan G

Re: The problem with physics

> Il 14 novembre 2019 alle 23.25 Alan Grayson ha > scritto: > > The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah, that's my conclusion after > many years of studying, arguing and reading. Many, perhaps most, attribute > ontological character to what is epistemological; namely the wf. This

Re: The problem with physics

> Il 15 novembre 2019 alle 1.20 Lawrence Crowell > ha scritto: > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah, that's my > conclusion after many years of studying, arguing and reading.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

Still breathing. But I was not connected. s. > Il 31 ottobre 2019 alle 1.44 Alan Grayson ha scritto: > > > > On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 4:11:43 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote: > > > > I would revise my interpretation this way; the electr

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

I would revise my interpretation this way; the electron, or whatever, behaves as a wave when no information exists to distinguish which-way, and that wave goes through both slits producing interference. When such information exists, even if it isn't used or measured, the interference ceases to

Re: Something deeply hidden in the forest

> Il 22 ottobre 2019 alle 10.14 Philip Thrift ha > scritto: > > "Nor do they demonstrate ‘temporal nonlocality’ in their ‘delayed choice’ > form, beyond standard EPR correlations." > > or > > "Nor do they demonstrate ‘temporal nonlocality’ in their ‘delayed choice’ > form

Re: Something deeply hidden in the forest

> Il 20 ottobre 2019 alle 17.57 smitra < smi...@zonnet.nl > mailto:smi...@zonnet.nl > ha scritto: > > Yes, Bruce is right on this point of the interference being detectable > after the photons hitting the screen by transferring the which way > information to the spins of

Re: Something deeply hidden in the forest

"In the delayed choice experiment, the decision whether or not to quantum erase the "which way" information can be made long after the original photons hit the screen and make their marks there. So decoherence has set in, and any parallel universes have necessarily become different in some

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

> Il 20 gennaio 2019 alle 13.25 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 12:10:25 PM UTC, scerir wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Il 20 gennaio 201

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

> Il 20 gennaio 2019 alle 12.56 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 10:46:01 AM UTC, scerir wrote: > > > > > > > > [BRUNO writes] It has a non null amplitude of probability of being > >

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

[BRUNO writes] It has a non null amplitude of probability of being here and there at the same time, like having a non null amplitude of probability of going through each slit in the two slits experience. If not, you can’t explain the inference patterns, especially in the photon

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

A numerus (literally: "number"i) was the term used for a unit of the Roman army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_army .. In the Imperial Roman army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Roman_army (30 BC – 284 AD), it referred to units of barbarian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarian

Re: Coherent states of a superposition

> Il 4 dicembre 2018 alle 16.36 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 10:13:38 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 Dec 2018, at 20:57, agrays...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> Il 16 novembre 2018 alle 18.20 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > On Friday, November 16, 2018 at 4:39:42 PM UTC, scerir wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Il 16 novembre 201

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

> Il 16 novembre 2018 alle 15.38 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > On Friday, November 16, 2018 at 10:14:32 AM UTC, scerir wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Il 16 novembre 201

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

https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/quvis/simulations_html5/sims/superposition/superposition-mixed-states.html -- 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, send an email

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

> Il 16 novembre 2018 alle 10.19 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 2:14:48 PM UTC, scerir wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Il 15 novembre 201

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

> Il 15 novembre 2018 alle 14.29 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 8:04:53 AM UTC, scerir wrote: > > > > > > Imagine a spin-1/2 particle described by the state psi = sqrt(1/2) > > [(s+)_

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

Imagine a spin-1/2 particle described by the state psi = sqrt(1/2) [(s+)_z + (s-)_z] . If the x-component of spin is measured by passing the spin-1/2 particle through a Stern-Gerlach with its field oriented along the x-axis, the particle will ALWAYS emerge 'up'.. In fact (s+)_z = sqrt(1/2)

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

> Il 23 ottobre 2018 alle 13.42 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 10:36:16 AM UTC, scerir wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Il 23 ottobre 2018 alle 11.20 Phi

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

> Il 23 ottobre 2018 alle 11.20 Philip Thrift ha > scritto: > > > > On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 1:41:06 AM UTC-5, scerir wrote: > > > > > > > > The original 'cat' was, of course, Einstein's 'gunpowder' paradox. &

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

> Il 22 ottobre 2018 alle 23.20 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 5:39:28 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Friday, October 19, 2018 at 9:08:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: The Ilusion of Branching and the MWI

> Il 4 agosto 2018 alle 23.32 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > AFAIK, no one has ever observed a probability wave, from which I conclude > the wave function has only epistemic content. So I have embraced the "shut up > and calculate" interpretation of the wave function. I also see a

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

> Il 3 agosto 2018 alle 0.56 Bruce Kellett ha > scritto: > > From: Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@verizon.net > > > > > On 8/2/2018 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:12,

Re: Realizable quantum states

> Il 31 luglio 2018 alle 5.06 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 12:57:34 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:42 PM Bruce Kellett < > > bhke...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > >

Re: Radioactive Decay States

--- SCERIR; IN YOU OWN WORDS; WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE AND WHY? AG Is the state ψ (i.e. a superposition state) a physically object or is it an abstract entity that merely provides information about the system? This is the question. This mystery is the fact that no physical property is, in general

Re: Radioactive Decay States

> Il 13 luglio 2018 alle 20.55 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > On Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 8:24:32 AM UTC-6, scerir wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Il 12 luglio 20

Re: Radioactive Decay States

> Il 12 luglio 2018 alle 3.57 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 11:23:55 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Il 11 luglio 20

Re: Radioactive Decay States

> Il 11 luglio 2018 alle 0.01 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 11:55:45 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Il 9 luglio 201

Re: Radioactive Decay States

Thursday, July 5, 2018 at > > > > > > > > 2:03:46 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > &

Re: Radioactive Decay States

> Il 4 luglio 2018 alle 2.37 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 1:21:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 23 Jun 2018, at 00:13, agrays...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM (CORRECTION)

“The idea that they [measurement outcomes] be not alternatives but *all* really happen simultaneously seems lunatic to him [to the quantum theorist], just *impossible*. He thinks that if the laws of nature took *this* form for, let me say, a quarter of an hour, we should find our surroundings

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM (CORRECTION)

Il 5 dicembre 2017 alle 10.25 scerir ha scritto: Sometimes I read and re-read something Schroedinger seemed to have in mind. “The idea that [the alternate measurement outcomes] be not alternatives but all really happening simultaneously seems lunatic to [the quantum theorist], just impossible

Re: Mathematics as the result of natural selection

> Il 18 giugno 2018 alle 2.24 Russell Standish ha > scritto: > There's considerable evolutionary advantage, just not enough time yet > for evolution to have acted :). For some reason this reminds me of a quote: "It is because we have blindly excluded the lessons of these regular bodies from

Re: Mathematics as the result of natural selection

> Il 18 giugno 2018 alle 14.08 Jason Resch ha scritto: > > I think a lot of our abstract reasoning ability results from our being > social creatures, and having to create mental models of other > people/groups/tribes, etc. to predict their behaviors under different > scenarios. To guess

Shan Gao on quantum measurement (links)

Shan Gao, "The measurement problem revisited", downloadable paper https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11229-017-1476-y see also http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11811/ and http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/13314/ and https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02738 -- You received this message because

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

> Il 12 giugno 2018 alle 10.01 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 9:12:41 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 4:36:37 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > > > > >

Re: Entanglement

> Il 5 giugno 2018 alle 5.05 Bruce Kellett ha > scritto: > > From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com > > > > > > > On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 1:18:29 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > > > > > > From: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Kant: something, nothing

An interesting (maybe!) paper about Kant and nothingness, or emptyness https://www.academia.edu/36714875/Kant_on_Cold -- 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, send an

Re: Entanglement

> Il 27 maggio 2018 alle 8.21 'scerir' via Everything List > <everything-list@googlegroups.com> ha scritto: > > > > > > > Il 27 maggio 2018 alle 6.05 Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> > ha scritto: > > > > > &g

Re: Entanglement

> Il 27 maggio 2018 alle 8.37 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 6:21:47 AM UTC, scerir wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Il 27 maggio 2018 alle 6.

Re: Entanglement

> Il 27 maggio 2018 alle 6.05 Brent Meeker ha scritto: > > > > On 5/26/2018 1:37 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com > mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 5:08:51 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > > >

Re: Primary matter

that there was a sort of evolution from "matter" to "form", from "matter" to " soul", from "matter" to "information" I would rather say. s. > Il 26 maggio 2018 alle 22.56 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > >

Re: Primary matter

Aristotle distinguishes two aspects of ordinary things: form and matter. Form only exists when it enforms matter. Matter is just potential to be enformed. Aristotle identifies matter with potentiality, form with actuality. "For, as we said, word substance has three meanings, form, matter, and

Re: Entanglement

I believe I'll wait for a better theory. One that includes gravity and spacetime and consciousness. Brent "I saw that far within its depths there lies, by Love together in one volume bound, that which in leaves lies scattered through the world; substance and accident, and modes thereof,

Re: Einstein quote

> Il 14 maggio 2018 alle 14.17 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 6:20:42 AM UTC, scerir wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Il 14 maggio 2018 alle 6.52 agrays...@gmail.com ha > > sc

Re: Einstein quote

> Il 14 maggio 2018 alle 6.52 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > 'There is no inductive method which could lead to the fundamental > concepts of physics. Failure to understand this fact constituted the basic > philosophical error of so many investigators of the nineteenth century.' >

On the reversal of time in natural law (Schroedinger)

Schroedinger wrote an interesting (little known) paper, in 1931. It is a sort of 'Two-time symmetric interpretation' or 'Two-state vector quantum formalism', I mean that 'ABL rule', that Aharonov's stuff. “Über die Umkehrung der Naturgesetze,” Sitz. preuss. Akad. Wiss., Phys.-Math. Klasse 9

  1   2   3   >