On 8 November 2014 02:39, Peter Sas peterjacco...@gmail.com wrote:
O.K. I think I get it... The number of branches in which people
miraculously survive is astronomically lower than the number of branches
where people die according to the odds Hence the likelihood that our
world contains
proved by PA instead of the usual logician's
proved in PA. The first is more correct, and that plays some role in
AUDA.
I will certainly come back on Löbs theorem.
BTW I recommend the following exercise for those who doubt that the
MWI reinstates locality: translate the Bennett (and Al
On 23 January 2014 19:41, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Whaddya reckon? To me it makes an elegant sense, though I have no idea of
its testable. I suspect not, but it seems a lot cleaner than the entire
backup idea, OR the idea of a particle that carries its autobiography
under its arm.
It
Ah, right now I understand your point.
If the mathematical multiverse hipothesis is correct, in a certain
way, not even today there is time neither init neither end. time is an
observation made by living beings inside. We live in a mathematical
equation that has no such thing as time when looked
On 23 Jan 2014, at 01:57, Pierz wrote:
Excellent jessem, thanks. This line from the abstract of the first
paper you cite pretty much summarises the changed understanding of
MWI I was getting at:
Measurement-type interactions lead, not to many worlds but, rather,
to many local copies
On 23 Jan 2014, at 03:25, LizR wrote:
On 23 January 2014 12:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
By having interacted in the (distant) past. If the universe is a
pure quantum state then it has zero entropy, which means that all
the complexity and information we see is a local
Liz,
Apparently you don't understand QM very well. A decoherence PRODUCES an
entanglement. All particle interactions result in entanglements of the
interacting particles on the relations between their particle properties
imposed by the conservation laws that govern particle interactions.
,
Does it? Suppose there's an electron on Jupiter that was entangled in a
singlet state with an electron on Earth and the electron on Earth just got
it's spin measured? MWI may be able to model this with a local hidden
variable, but in THIS world it looks like FTL influence - and it can go a
lot
On 22 January 2014 18:26, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 02:42:43PM +1300, LizR wrote:
Phew, I got there in the end :)
I can only assume that having an (apparent) body etc is more probable
than
being a disembodied p-ghost, but explaining this in
this out in order to clarify my understanding - hopefully the
MWI experts out there can help me out here. A while back I asked whether
the past can be undefined at a quantum level the way the future is. I asked
this because I recall (somewhat vaguely unfortunately) reading or hearing
something from
Alberto,
This is total nonsense. It assumes the universe did not evolve for 13.4
billion years until life came along.
It's even crazier than block time and MWI
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:19:58 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
in the mathematical multiverse hypothesis
along.
It's even crazier than block time and MWI
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:19:58 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
in the mathematical multiverse hypothesis, there hasn't to be time at
all. A mathematical equation has not something called time. Time is
the line followed
? MWI may be able to model this with a local hidden variable, but
in THIS
world it looks like FTL influence - and it can go a lot further than
Jupiter, e.g.
the CMB.
Assuming this is correct then the snapshot theory of how the MWI operates looks more a
lot likely. (I was given to believe
Excellent jessem, thanks. This line from the abstract of the first paper
you cite pretty much summarises the changed understanding of MWI I was
getting at:
Measurement-type interactions lead, not to many worlds but, rather, to many
local copies of experimental systems and the observers who
On 23 January 2014 12:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
By having interacted in the (distant) past. If the universe is a pure
quantum state then it has zero entropy, which means that all the complexity
and information we see is a local phenomena due to our being
quasi-classical, i.e.
On 1/22/2014 6:25 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 January 2014 12:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
By having interacted in the (distant) past. If the universe is a pure
quantum state
then it has zero entropy, which means that all the complexity and
On 23 January 2014 18:09, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Yeah, but decoherence just makes things look classical at a coarse-grained
level (when we trace over the environment). Microscopically it's spreading
the superposition.
Yes, I guess that makes sense. All those quantum entities
On 23 January 2014 06:38, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Alberto,
This is total nonsense. It assumes the universe did not evolve for 13.4
billion years until life came along.
More like 10 billion years, but same point.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
into the one new
branch. This is the exact equivalent of MWI universes re-merging.
But let's say I made a change to the *same line* in both code branches.
Then I can't merge automatically any more because there's a conflict. I
have to choose which version of the line I want. This is the equivalent
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 1:30 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/20/2014 5:56 PM, Pierz wrote:
A second question/thought on MWI. MWI proposes that the entire universe
splits at the point of wave collapse, or rather that it is continually and
infinitely splitting with every possible
On 21 Jan 2014, at 06:47, Pierz wrote:
The question is whether a whole universe is created for each state
in a superposition. Deutsch seems unequivocal that it is.
Hmm, Deutsch might have change his mind. he was also sure that there
is a base problem, but he changes on it.
Liz is right.
On 21 Jan 2014, at 09:43, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 1:30 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/20/2014 5:56 PM, Pierz wrote:
A second question/thought on MWI. MWI proposes that the entire
universe splits at the point of wave collapse, or rather
On 1/21/2014 5:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2014, at 06:47, Pierz wrote:
The question is whether a whole universe is created for each state in a superposition.
Deutsch seems unequivocal that it is.
Hmm, Deutsch might have change his mind. he was also sure that there is a base
they don't make enough difference to spread, or not much...
Which sounds more like your source contol system, well, sort of.
On 21 January 2014 14:56, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
A second question/thought on MWI. MWI proposes that the entire universe
splits at the point of wave collapse
patterns
occur in MWI due to interference between universes, which can only occur if
universes can merge again after splitting, then at least at this level, the
past is not well defined. If a universe merges back with another from which
it had temporarily diverged, then an observer within
It seems to me that differentiation is local, and spreads slowly, and that
there is always going to be some remerging (but only in proportion to the
chances of entropy reversing). The an atom starts in a superposition of
decayed and non-decayed. Now a cat is in a superposition of alive and dead.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 04:14:49PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
The problem with that is that it make mysterious all the
intersubjective agreement we found in naive and pre-quantum physics.
You have the paradox of Wigner's friend. Instead of trying to
explain that directly from the wave function it
On 22 January 2014 14:03, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
What is ultimately mysterious is why observed reality is consistent
with us as observers - the occam catastrophe problem, I mention in
Do you mean consistent between us (i.e. it's mysterious that we agree on
what we're
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 02:08:52PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 22 January 2014 14:03, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
What is ultimately mysterious is why observed reality is consistent
with us as observers - the occam catastrophe problem, I mention in
Do you mean consistent
On 22 January 2014 14:24, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
No - that it is consistent with oneself, as an observer. Why couldn't
we be a disembodied observer playing a virtual reality game? A p-ghost
as someone put it recently.
Do you mean consistent with (apparently) having a
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 02:23:12PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 22 January 2014 14:24, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
No - that it is consistent with oneself, as an observer. Why couldn't
we be a disembodied observer playing a virtual reality game? A p-ghost
as someone put it
On 22 January 2014 14:35, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 02:23:12PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 22 January 2014 14:24, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
No - that it is consistent with oneself, as an observer. Why couldn't
we be a
in a singlet state
with an electron on Earth and the electron on Earth just got it's spin measured? MWI may
be able to model this with a local hidden variable, but in THIS world it looks like FTL
influence - and it can go a lot further than Jupiter, e.g. the CMB.
Brent
it may be centuries before
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 02:42:43PM +1300, LizR wrote:
Phew, I got there in the end :)
I can only assume that having an (apparent) body etc is more probable than
being a disembodied p-ghost, but explaining this in comp (or any Theory of
Nothing) sounds like it may be a measure problem over
I am putting this out in order to clarify my understanding - hopefully the
MWI experts out there can help me out here. A while back I asked whether
the past can be undefined at a quantum level the way the future is. I asked
this because I recall (somewhat vaguely unfortunately) reading
On 21 January 2014 14:18, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
I am putting this out in order to clarify my understanding - hopefully the
MWI experts out there can help me out here. A while back I asked whether
the past can be undefined at a quantum level the way the future is. I asked
this because
A second question/thought on MWI. MWI proposes that the entire universe
splits at the point of wave collapse, or rather that it is continually and
infinitely splitting with every possible quantum state. This has been
understandably criticised as a vastly extravagant explanation. A whole
On 1/20/2014 5:18 PM, Pierz wrote:
I am putting this out in order to clarify my understanding - hopefully the MWI experts
out there can help me out here. A while back I asked whether the past can be undefined
at a quantum level the way the future is. I asked this because I recall (somewhat
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 12:41:46 PM UTC+11, Liz R wrote:
On 21 January 2014 14:18, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
I am putting this out in order to clarify my understanding - hopefully
the MWI experts out there can help me out here. A while back I asked
whether the past
in
one time direction than the other. Assuming time symmetry of the underlying
physics, a universe at thermodynamic equilibrium could play out with equal
probability forwards or backwards, which would surely include MWI
splitting/merging?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
...
Which sounds more like your source contol system, well, sort of.
On 21 January 2014 14:56, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
A second question/thought on MWI. MWI proposes that the entire universe
splits at the point of wave collapse, or rather that it is continually and
infinitely splitting
of.
On 21 January 2014 14:56, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
A second question/thought on MWI. MWI proposes that the entire universe
splits at the point of wave collapse, or rather that it is continually and
infinitely splitting with every possible quantum state. This has been
understandably
Yeah, I believe that's how it's supposed to work. They're all in the same
background spacetime but once detangled have no influence on each other.
(However a TOE might have something to say about background spacetime)
On 21 January 2014 16:45, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
I prefer
My understanding is that a different universe really means a different
spacetime.
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, I believe that's how it's supposed to work. They're all in the same
background spacetime but once detangled have no influence on each other.
The question is whether a whole universe is created for each state in a
superposition. Deutsch seems unequivocal that it is. I'm just questioning
a) whether that's what he really means and b) whether that is necessary.
It's necessary that that local states be able to decohere, but that doesn't
On 2/22/2013 9:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
A problem: physicists don't try to define what is a (primary or not) physical universe.
That's not a bug. It's a feature.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from
On 22 Feb 2013, at 04:10, Joseph Knight wrote:
Question: Why is the derivation* of the Born Rule in (Everett,
1957) not considered satisfactory**?
Good question. I asked it myself very often.
*Everett shows that the amplitude-squared rule for subjective
probability is the only measure
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Feb 2013, at 04:10, Joseph Knight wrote:
Question: Why is the derivation* of the Born Rule in (Everett, 1957) not
considered satisfactory**?
Good question. I asked it myself very often.
*Everett shows that
. If the
SWE is correct, then the SWE is an epistemological consequence of
comp, including the MWI; and if QM is not correct, with comp, this
could lead to multiverses but also to multi-multiverses, or multi-
multiverses, etc. Even them might be only local, without any definite
global physical reality
plausible.
I agree.
I don't think this is compatible with the SWE+comp.
I agree.
If the SWE is correct, then the SWE is an epistemological consequence
of comp, including the MWI; and if QM is not correct, with comp, this
could lead to multiverses but also to multi-multiverses, or
multi
Question: Why is the derivation* of the Born Rule in (Everett, 1957) not
considered satisfactory**?
*Everett shows that the amplitude-squared rule for subjective probability
is the only measure consistent with an agreeable additivity condition.
**It is apparently not satisfactory because there
On 2/21/2013 7:10 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:
Question: Why is the derivation* of the Born Rule in (Everett, 1957) not considered
satisfactory**?
*Everett shows that the amplitude-squared rule for subjective probability is the only
measure consistent with an agreeable additivity condition.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:56 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/21/2013 7:10 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:
Question: Why is the derivation* of the Born Rule in (Everett, 1957) not
considered satisfactory**?
*Everett shows that the amplitude-squared rule for subjective
probability
On 2/21/2013 9:06 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:56 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/21/2013 7:10 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:
Question: Why is the derivation* of the Born Rule in (Everett, 1957) not
considered
to both
them, and to the MWI defenders, but of course, it can also makes them
both nervous.
Many points of view overlap much more than what their defenders
believe. The problem is that they don't try to define terms like
information, observers, physical, etc. I would say that more
than 50
state.
The computationalist shift worlds == dreams should please to both them,
and to the MWI defenders, but of course, it can also makes them both
nervous.
Many points of view overlap much more than what their defenders believe.
The problem is that they don't try to define terms like
On 24 Jan 2013, at 04:03, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1069v1.pdf See question 12.
Interesting. Thanks.
A bit sad, also.
If it takes time to understand the MWI of the SWE (which writes it
almost explicitly), I guess it will take time to understand the
universal
:03, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1069v1.pdf See question 12.
Interesting. Thanks.
A bit sad, also.
If it takes time to understand the MWI of the SWE (which writes it almost
explicitly), I guess it will take time to understand the universal
machine's many worlds
://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1069v1.pdf See question 12.
Interesting. Thanks.
A bit sad, also.
If it takes time to understand the MWI of the SWE (which writes it almost
explicitly), I guess it will take time to understand the universal
machine's many
worlds interpretation of arithmetic
On 16 Jan 2013, at 17:23, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 14 Jan 2013, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal
marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 13 Jan 2013, at 05:34, Richard Ruquist
On 16 Jan 2013, at 17:30, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 15 Jan 2013, at 16:24, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
What do you mean by quantum mind?
keep in
the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-16, 11:02:52
Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects
Theory
On 16 Jan 2013, at 13:24, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
The senses convert
that includes as modules:
1. the CTM for a compactified-substance subspace that derives the MWI
Quantum Mind as well as
2. the physical world: Matter and Energy (that was created along with
Space and the Compact Manifold CM Subspace). According to string
theory the particles of fermionic matter are connected
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:54 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 16 Jan 2013, at 17:23, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2013, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno
...@verizon.net]
1/17/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-17, 06:08:26
Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On 16 Jan
Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net javascript:]
1/15/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-14, 11:51:03
Subject: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error
anywhere, except as a
graduate specialization for mathematicians.
So I will accept the results of arithmetics
in a systems analysis that includes as modules:
1. the CTM for a compactified-substance subspace that derives the MWI
Quantum Mind as well as
2. the physical world: Matter and Energy
Hi Stephen P. King
Ultimately the PEH.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/17/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-16, 17:47:35
Subject: Re: MWI
, 10:59:12
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error,it should be TwoAspects
Theory
On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:31:51 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
1) Good point. So far, there is only indirect evidence of gravity waves.
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=15438
], [rcl...@verizon.net javascript:]
1/17/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-17, 10:59:12
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological
: 2013-01-17, 11:59:05
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error,it should beTwoAspects
Theory
On Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:54:03 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
Sorry, I'm missing your point. What is it ?
You said Potential energy is more than conceptual, so I
Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On 13 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, January 13, 2013 11:57:48 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Jan 2013, at 13:01, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Roger,
How can you have a wave without some
On 14 Jan 2013, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 13 Jan 2013, at 05:34, Richard Ruquist wrote:
That's because they don't consider that matter is inherently
sensitive.
I do. In my model of reality all matter is
: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-15, 08:47:49
Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects
Theory
On 13 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, January 13, 2013 11:57:48 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Jan 2013, at 13:01, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Roger
On 15 Jan 2013, at 16:24, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
What do you mean by quantum mind?
keep in mind that with comp we cannot assume the quantum. It is has
to be
derived from the digital seen from inside.
And I am not sure
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2013, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 13 Jan 2013, at 05:34, Richard Ruquist wrote:
That's because they don't consider that
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Jan 2013, at 16:24, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
What do you mean by quantum mind?
keep in mind that with comp we cannot assume the quantum. It is
:52
Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On 16 Jan 2013, at 13:24, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
The senses convert the phenomenol space-time world out there
I don't grasp how something phenomenal can be out there.
into nonphysical perceived
-list
Time: 2013-01-16, 11:23:57
Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Jan 2013, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Jan
On 1/16/2013 11:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Leibniz's perception isn't really instantly and continuous, it's more like a
slide show.
Hi Roger,
What determines the sequencing of the 'slides' and their rate of
transition?
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are
the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-14, 11:51:03
Subject: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects
Theory
On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:06:57 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
Why
natural
restrictions here).
The whole problem with QM, is that the wave's physical
interpretation is an amplitude of probability, and that we can make
them interfere as if they were physical. But in MWI, the quantum
waves are just the map of the relative accessible physical
realities
collapse instantly into something the
size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at
the Planck scale.
I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle
size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds.
So it
does not rule out MWI.
But if waves
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
What do you mean by quantum mind?
keep in mind that with comp we cannot assume the quantum. It is has to be
derived from the digital seen from inside.
And I am not sure we can choose the computations we are in, no more
-
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20
Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime
Hi Richard Ruquist
OK--- in the mind.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/14/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-13, 08:45:18
Subject: Re: Re: MWI
shares with
matter.
Nothing collapses, Planck scale is a mathematical abstraction, and
quantum
mind is just plain old ordinary sense.
I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle
size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds.
So it
does not rule out
the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20
Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects
Theory
On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
EM waves
, Planck scale is a mathematical abstraction, and
quantum
mind is just plain old ordinary sense.
I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle
size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it
does not rule out MWI.
A universe based
On Monday, January 14, 2013 12:11:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal
mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript:
wrote:
On 13 Jan 2013, at 05:34, Richard Ruquist wrote:
That's because they don't consider that matter is inherently
sensitive.
I do. In
must travel at the speed of light.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/13/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-12, 10:33:11
Subject: Re: MWI
particles, IMO this is
necessary for all interpretations of quantum mechanics including MWI
and Feynman renormalization.
Richard
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Roger wrote:
but EM waves
are physical (electrons)
However, EM waves collapse to photons, not electrons. And I would put
EM waves on the mental side and photons on the physical side. But
light seems to bridge the
: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify
them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and
nonphysical.
The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap
between
with
matter.
Nothing collapses, Planck scale is a mathematical abstraction, and
quantum
mind is just plain old ordinary sense.
I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle
size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it
does not rule
restrictions here).
The whole problem with QM, is that the wave's physical interpretation
is an amplitude of probability, and that we can make them interfere as
if they were physical. But in MWI, the quantum waves are just the map
of the relative accessible physical realities. An electronic
this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle
size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it
does not rule out MWI.
But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the
Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum
Electrodynamics
problem with QM, is that the wave's physical interpretation is
an amplitude of probability, and that we can make them interfere as if they
were physical. But in MWI, the quantum waves are just the map of the
relative accessible physical realities. An electronic orbital is a map of
where you
of particles so that they may interact with other particles at
the Planck scale.
I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle
size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it
does not rule out MWI.
But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind
Hi everything-list,
I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI.
Here's why:
I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect,
due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves
are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic.
This seems to deny
801 - 900 of 1193 matches
Mail list logo
