Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On 23 Dec 2017, at 22:27, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 12:49:16PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote: I don't know why he insists on calling computationalism "mechanist" since it has nothing to do with "mechanisms" or "mechanical". Mechanist just means related to machines.

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On 23 Dec 2017, at 22:20, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 11:04:58AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Dec 2017, at 00:56, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 05:25:12PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: What is the difference you make between an instrument

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 12:49:16PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote: > I don't know why he > insists on calling computationalism "mechanist" since it has nothing to do > with "mechanisms" or "mechanical". Mechanist just means related to machines. The most developed, complete theory we have of machines

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 11:04:58AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 19 Dec 2017, at 00:56, Russell Standish wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 05:25:12PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > > > > > What is the difference you make between an instrument recording the > > > result > > > and

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On 21 Dec 2017, at 23:35, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 7:18:31 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Dec 2017, at 01:41, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 11:44:47 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Dec 2017, at 11:27,

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 7:18:31 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 21 Dec 2017, at 01:41, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 11:44:47 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 19 Dec 2017, at 11:27, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, December

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On 21 Dec 2017, at 01:41, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 11:44:47 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Dec 2017, at 11:27, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 8:03:00 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, December

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On 20 Dec 2017, at 21:53, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/20/2017 3:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Dec 2017, at 11:27, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 8:03:00 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 6:37:39 PM UTC, Bruno

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On 20 Dec 2017, at 21:49, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/20/2017 3:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You need to read the papers or ask question. The starting point (which is not obvious and requires the reading of the Universal Doevtailer Argument) is that you cannot have both a mechanist

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 2:49:19 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/20/2017 3:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > You need to read the papers or ask question. The starting point (which > > is not obvious and requires the reading of the Universal Doevtailer > > Argument) is that you

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 11:44:47 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 19 Dec 2017, at 11:27, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 8:03:00 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 6:37:39 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On 12/20/2017 3:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Dec 2017, at 11:27, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 8:03:00 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 6:37:39 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On 12/20/2017 3:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You need to read the papers or ask question. The starting point (which is not obvious and requires the reading of the Universal Doevtailer Argument) is that you cannot have both a mechanist explanation of the mind, and physicalism. This is

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On 19 Dec 2017, at 11:27, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 8:03:00 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 6:37:39 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Dec 2017, at 19:00, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:20 PM,

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On 19 Dec 2017, at 09:03, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 6:37:39 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Dec 2017, at 19:00, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:20 PM, wrote: ​> ​I don't see how Wigner's friend presents a problem

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On 19 Dec 2017, at 00:56, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 05:25:12PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: What is the difference you make between an instrument recording the result and an observer? Consciousness? But that is what "Wigner's friend" shows difficult to admit, and

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

So I can't achieve immortality by confining myself to a lonely place where nothing can observe me..? Damn shame there are no refunds on pyramids. On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 6:54:01 AM UTC-8, Jason wrote: > > The solution was proposed by Everett in 1957, collapse is a subjective >

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 8:03:00 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 6:37:39 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 16 Dec 2017, at 19:00, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:20 PM, wrote: >> >> ​> ​ >>> I don't

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 6:37:39 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 16 Dec 2017, at 19:00, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:20 PM, > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> I don't see how Wigner's friend presents a problem for Copenhagen. >> According to the CI, the

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 05:25:12PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > What is the difference you make between an instrument recording the result > and an observer? Consciousness? But that is what "Wigner's friend" shows > difficult to admit, and besides, I thought we all agree that it is better >

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On 16 Dec 2017, at 19:00, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:20 PM, wrote: ​> ​I don't see how Wigner's friend presents a problem for Copenhagen. According to the CI, the wf collapses when the system measured, which is when the box is opened. What am I

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On 15 Dec 2017, at 03:47, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 2:27:46 AM UTC, Jason wrote: On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 8:20 PM, wrote: On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 2:54:01 PM UTC, Jason wrote: The solution was proposed by Everett in 1957,

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

I see the issue as similar to chaos theory or statistical mechanics. The superposition of states in a system shifts to entanglements with states in an apparatus, which evolve through many states. We can think of the superposition of photons passing through a double slit, where if we place spin

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On 16 Dec 2017, at 13:47, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 1:17:09 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Dec 2017, at 06:20, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/14/2017 6:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: I don't see how Wigner's friend presents a problem for Copenhagen. According

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 2:56:59 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 2:29:01 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: >> >> agrays...@gmail.com >> ​ Wrote:​ >> >> >> ​> ​ >>> Not a problem. Easily solved. >> >> >> ​*Well that's a relief, physicists have been

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 2:29:01 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > agrays...@gmail.com > ​ Wrote:​ > > > ​> ​ >> Not a problem. Easily solved. > > > ​*Well that's a relief, physicists have been worrying about this for the > last 90 years.​ I guess they can relax now.* > > >> ​> ​ >>

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

agrayson2...@gmail.com ​ Wrote:​ ​> ​ > Not a problem. Easily solved. ​*Well that's a relief, physicists have been worrying about this for the last 90 years.​ I guess they can relax now.* > ​> ​ > collapse, or whatever you want to call it, occurs when the isolated system > interacts with the

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On 12/16/2017 1:18 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 8:22:47 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 1:35:36 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 6:00:30 PM UTC, John Clark

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 8:22:47 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 1:35:36 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 6:00:30 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:20 PM,

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 1:35:36 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 6:00:30 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:20 PM, wrote: >> >> ​> ​ >>> I don't see how Wigner's friend presents a problem for

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 6:00:30 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:20 PM, > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> I don't see how Wigner's friend presents a problem for Copenhagen. >> According to the CI, the wf collapses when the system measured, which is

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

I think this illustrates how an observation is one a deep level a sort of self-observation or about a set of quantum numbers that encode themselves. For this reason there is then no complete and consistent way of reconciling the quantum and classical worlds with each other according to quantum

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:20 PM, wrote: ​> ​ > I don't see how Wigner's friend presents a problem for Copenhagen. > According to the CI, the wf collapses when the system measured, which is > when the box is opened. What am I missing? > ​ According to ​ ​ Copenhagen ​ ​

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 6:47:22 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 1:17:09 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 15 Dec 2017, at 06:20, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/14/2017 6:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >>> *I don't see how Wigner's

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 1:17:09 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 15 Dec 2017, at 06:20, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 12/14/2017 6:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > >> *I don't see how Wigner's friend presents a problem for Copenhagen. >> According to the CI, the wf collapses when the

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On 15 Dec 2017, at 06:20, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/14/2017 6:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: I don't see how Wigner's friend presents a problem for Copenhagen. According to the CI, the wf collapses when the system measured, which is when the box is opened. What am I missing? The issue of

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 5:20:34 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/14/2017 6:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > >> *I don't see how Wigner's friend presents a problem for Copenhagen. >> According to the CI, the wf collapses when the system measured, which is >> when the box is opened. What

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On 12/14/2017 6:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: *I don't see how Wigner's friend presents a problem for Copenhagen. According to the CI, the wf collapses when the system measured, which is when the box is opened. What am I missing? The issue of the cat's memory is a different

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 2:27:46 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 8:20 PM, > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 2:54:01 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> The solution was proposed by Everett in 1957, collapse is a subjective >>>

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 8:20 PM, wrote: > > > On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 2:54:01 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >> >> The solution was proposed by Everett in 1957, collapse is a subjective >> illusion. The dead cat and its history of decomposing for the previous >> hour

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 2:54:01 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > The solution was proposed by Everett in 1957, collapse is a subjective > illusion. The dead cat and its history of decomposing for the previous > hour does not materialize out of nothing from the mere act of looking at it. > >

Re: Schrodinger's cat problem; proposed solution

The solution was proposed by Everett in 1957, collapse is a subjective illusion. The dead cat and its history of decomposing for the previous hour does not materialize out of nothing from the mere act of looking at it. No measurement is made of the cat, the Geiger counter, or the atom, by