Re: Against Mechanism

following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-24, 15:32:08 Subject: Re: Against Mechanism On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 2:17 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/24/2012 8:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Jason Resch Si

Fw: Re: Re: Against Mechanism

Hi Jason, I should have that if those two people can shake hands, they cannot be identical. - Have received the following content - Sender: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-26, 08:27:06 Subject: Re: Re: Against Mechanism Hi Jason Resch There is and cannot be

Re: Re: Re: Re: Against Mechanism

following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-25, 09:37:35 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Against Mechanism Well if two people have the same mind and identity, then might they share the same soul (at least for a moment)? Jason On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Ro

Re: Re: Against Mechanism

thing-list Time: 2012-12-24, 15:32:08 Subject: Re: Against Mechanism On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 2:17 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/24/2012 8:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Jason Resch Since 1p has the property of perspective, and no two people

Re: Re: Re: Against Mechanism

n.net] > 12/25/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: Jason Resch > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-12-24, 11:13:17 > Subject: Re: Re: Against Mechanism > > &

Re: Re: Re: Against Mechanism

Receiving the following content - > *From:* Jason Resch > *Receiver:* everything-list > *Time:* 2012-12-24, 11:13:17 > *Subject:* Re: Re: Against Mechanism > > > > On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > >> Hi Jason Resch >> >> Si

Re: Re: Re: Against Mechanism

long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-24, 11:13:17 Subject: Re: Re: Against Mechanism On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Jason Resch Since 1p has

Re: Against Mechanism

On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 2:17 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 12/24/2012 8:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > >> Hi Jason Resch >> >> Since 1p has the property of perspective, >> and no two people can be at the same place at the >> same time, > > >

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/24/2012 8:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Roger Clough > wrote: Hi Jason Resch Since 1p has the property of perspective, and no two people can be at the same place at the same time, But could there be two places

Re: Re: Against Mechanism

Receiving the following content - > From: Jason Resch > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-12-22, 14:56:13 > Subject: Re: Against Mechanism > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: &g

Re: Re: Against Mechanism

time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-22, 14:56:13 Subject: Re: Against Mechanism On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 Bruno Marc

Re: Against Mechanism

On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> as I said, there is no such thing as "the" future 1p view, there is > only "a" future 1p view. > > > But you have been duplicated. > Yes. > from your future person points of view > In a world of duplicating machines there is no such t

Re: Against Mechanism

On 22 Dec 2012, at 22:01, meekerdb wrote: On 12/22/2012 11:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Deutsch et al. have solved the probability problem. I don't think so. If you are referring to his decision analysis, it only seems to work for simple binary choices - QM predicts probabilities that ar

Re: Against Mechanism

On 22 Dec 2012, at 19:54, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> In a world with duplicating chambers there is no such thing as "the" future 1p view. Of course there is. There are two such future 1-view. Then as I said, there is no such thing as "the" future 1p v

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/22/2012 11:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Deutsch et al. have solved the probability problem. I don't think so. If you are referring to his decision analysis, it only seems to work for simple binary choices - QM predicts probabilities that are often irrational numbers. Gleason's theorem

Re: Against Mechanism

I meant to write: On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > Your error is that you are generalizing this rule beyond its domain and > you wrongly conclude it means there can never be any *difference in > the*experimental outcome regardless of whether it is analyzed and observed by

Re: Against Mechanism

On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> >> In a world with duplicating chambers there is no such thing as "the" >>> future 1p view. >>> >> >> Of course there is. There are two such future 1-view. >> > > Then as I said, there is no

Re: Against Mechanism

On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> In a world with duplicating chambers there is no such thing as "the" >> future 1p view. >> > > Of course there is. There are two such future 1-view. > Then as I said, there is no such thing as "the" future 1p view, there is only "a" future 1p vie

Re: Against Mechanism

On 20 Dec 2012, at 22:18, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> You are asking about the present first person point of view of someone, > NO. read the question: it is about a future first personal event. That is totally false! The Helsinki man is i

Re: Against Mechanism

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> You are asking about the present first person point of view of someone, >> > > > NO. read the question: it is about a future first personal event. > That is totally false! The Helsinki man is informing you about his PRESENT first person s

Re: Against Mechanism

On 19 Dec 2012, at 17:19, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> the question is about a future first person points of view, >> That is incorrect and I'm surprised at such a elementary error in logic. > This is rhetoric. No, in fact it is vitally important. >>

Re: Against Mechanism

On 16 Dec 2012, at 19:53, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> it's true that after the duplication there will be 2 first person Bruno Marchal points of view, but the problem is that before the duplication there is only one first person point of view

Re: Against Mechanism

On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> it's true that after the duplication there will be 2 first person > Bruno Marchal points of view, but the problem is that before the > duplication there is only one first person point of view at it is here the > question is asked about t

Re: Against Mechanism

On 15 Dec 2012, at 00:09, meekerdb wrote: On 12/14/2012 2:19 PM, John Mikes wrote: Brent, I stopped a long time ago to read the 'transported' versions for one reason: if it is REALLY (only) a transport, it does not make a difference whether "you" will CONTINUE in Moscow or in Helsinki, it

Re: Against Mechanism

On 15 Dec 2012, at 00:07, meekerdb wrote: On 12/14/2012 2:19 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/14/2012 4:50 PM, meekerdb wrote: Brent Meeker appreciates John Clark's concern with pronouns. I think it needs to put in the context of QM, which is what Bruno is proposing to explain. Suppos

Re: Against Mechanism

On 14 Dec 2012, at 21:54, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > In the 3p-view. But with the Computationalist Theory of Mind (CTM, alias comp), there are two first person points of view Yes, Bruno Marchal has said that many times and it's true tha

Re: Against Mechanism

On 15 Dec 2012, at 04:25, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/14/2012 6:07 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/14/2012 2:19 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/14/2012 4:50 PM, meekerdb wrote: Brent Meeker appreciates John Clark's concern with pronouns. I think it needs to put in the context of QM, which i

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/15/2012 9:50 AM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:50 PM, meekerdb > wrote: > Brent Meeker appreciates John Clark's concern with pronouns. John Clark is happy to read that but is somewhat skeptical it is true. > I think it needs to put in t

Re: Against Mechanism

2012/12/15 John Clark > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > >> Subjective probability depends on the amount of information, or lack of >>> it, the person involved has; and if Many Worlds is correct then all >>> probabilities are subjective. If you told me nothing about the ma

Re: Against Mechanism

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> Subjective probability depends on the amount of information, or lack of >> it, the person involved has; and if Many Worlds is correct then all >> probabilities are subjective. If you told me nothing about the machine and >> just said walk int

Re: Against Mechanism

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:50 PM, meekerdb wrote: > Brent Meeker appreciates John Clark's concern with pronouns. > John Clark is happy to read that but is somewhat skeptical it is true. > I think it needs to put in the context of QM, which is what Bruno is > proposing to explain. Suppose Bruno

Re: Against Mechanism

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:25 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > >> Yes, and there are two of them and so there are 2 "heres" and 2 "not >>> theres". So what ONE and only ONE thing does John Clark the >>> experimenter enter into the lab notebook?? >>> >

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/14/2012 6:09 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/14/2012 2:19 PM, John Mikes wrote: Brent, I stopped a long time ago to read the 'transported' versions for one reason: if it is REALLY (only) a transport, it does not make a difference whether "you" will CONTINUE in Moscow or in Helsinki, it is 'you

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/14/2012 6:07 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/14/2012 2:19 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/14/2012 4:50 PM, meekerdb wrote: Brent Meeker appreciates John Clark's concern with pronouns. I think it needs to put in the context of QM, which is what Bruno is proposing to explain. Suppose Bruno i

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/14/2012 2:19 PM, John Mikes wrote: Brent, I stopped a long time ago to read the 'transported' versions for one reason: if it is REALLY (only) a transport, it does not make a difference whether "you" will CONTINUE in Moscow or in Helsinki, it is 'your' undisrupted self. However, if it goes

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/14/2012 2:19 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/14/2012 4:50 PM, meekerdb wrote: Brent Meeker appreciates John Clark's concern with pronouns. I think it needs to put in the context of QM, which is what Bruno is proposing to explain. Suppose Bruno is Helsinki and he steps in a transporte

Re: Against Mechanism

Brent, I stopped a long time ago to read the 'transported' versions for one reason: if it is REALLY (only) a transport, it does not make a difference whether "you" will CONTINUE in Moscow or in Helsinki, it is 'your' undisrupted self. However, if it goes into a multiple existence then - my problem

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/14/2012 4:50 PM, meekerdb wrote: Brent Meeker appreciates John Clark's concern with pronouns. I think it needs to put in the context of QM, which is what Bruno is proposing to explain. Suppose Bruno is Helsinki and he steps in a transporter and it sends him to Washington. That Bruno,

Re: Against Mechanism

If this were done in real life, my guess is that Bruno_w dies in the transporter (sorry Bruno), and a disoriented amnesiac identical twin is born at every transporter location. I don't know if these clones would even survive, I think they would be brain dead and lacking a heartbeat but maybe co

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/14/2012 12:54 PM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > In the 3p-view. But with the Computationalist Theory of Mind (CTM, alias comp), there are two first person points of view Yes, Bruno Marchal has said that

Re: Against Mechanism

So if there is a brain conjoined twin (Adam & Ben) in Albuquerque and they are duplicated once in Buffalo and once in Cleveland, but in Cleveland something goes wrong and Adam does not get duplicated. What are you both saying happens to Adam & Ben in Albuquerque and to Ben in Cleveland? Craig

Re: Against Mechanism

On 13 Dec 2012, at 22:25, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Yes, and there are two of them and so there are 2 "heres" and 2 "not theres". So what ONE and only ONE thing does John Clark the experimenter enter into the lab notebook?? > You are hopeles

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/13/2012 3:36 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/13/2012 11:46 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/12/13 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> On 12/13/2012 10:46 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: > Copenhagen said the choice

Re: Against Mechanism

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > Yes, and there are two of them and so there are 2 "heres" and 2 "not >> theres". So what ONE and only ONE thing does John Clark the >> experimenterenter into the lab notebook?? >> > > > You are hopeless. I've answered this at least 10 times

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/13/2012 11:46 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/12/13 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> On 12/13/2012 10:46 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: > Copenhagen said the choice is made by the experimenter and appa

Re: Against Mechanism

2012/12/13 meekerdb > On 12/13/2012 10:46 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 meekerdb wrote: > > > Copenhagen said the choice is made by the experimenter and apparently >> Deutsch agrees with this because he thinks it's significant that his AI is >> conscious > > > No Deutsch does

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/13/2012 10:46 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: > Copenhagen said the choice is made by the experimenter and apparently Deutsch agrees with this because he thinks it's significant that his AI is conscious No Deutsch does no

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/13/2012 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Dec 2012, at 04:39, meekerdb wrote: On 12/12/2012 4:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:15 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 12/12/2012 9:25 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 meekerdb

Re: Against Mechanism

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 meekerdb wrote: > Copenhagen said the choice is made by the experimenter and apparently > Deutsch agrees with this because he thinks it's significant that his AI is > conscious No Deutsch does not agree with this, I know because I've talked to him about it. In the many wor

Re: Against Mechanism

On 13 Dec 2012, at 04:39, meekerdb wrote: On 12/12/2012 4:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:15 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/12/2012 9:25 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 meekerdb wrote: On 12/11/2012 9:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> Everett's QM is not a t

Re: Against Mechanism

Craig, If in your theory sense is fundamental, a hence explains everything, how could your theory explain concepts like: Gravity Quantum mechanics Fine tuning It seems you need some formal laws and definitions concerning sense in order to build from it as a basis of understanding. What m

Re: Against Mechanism

On Thursday, December 13, 2012 5:22:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 12 Dec 2012, at 20:00, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > > On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:49:16 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal > > wrote: > > > > On 12 Dec 2012, at 14:19, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > > >

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12 Dec 2012, at 20:00, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:49:16 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Dec 2012, at 14:19, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:03:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 11 Dec 2012, at 19:17, Craig Wein

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/12/2012 5:10 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Stephen P. King > wrote: On 12/12/2012 7:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: If observing a definite result doesn't collapse the wave function then what does? I think the expe

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/12/2012 4:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:15 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 12/12/2012 9:25 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 12/11/2012 9:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote

Re: Against Mechanism

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: > On 12/12/2012 7:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > >> If observing a definite result doesn't collapse the wave function then >> what does? I think the experiment is meant to show collapse does not >> happen. And if there is no collapse then you

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/12/2012 7:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: If observing a definite result doesn't collapse the wave function then what does? I think the experiment is meant to show collapse does not happen. And if there is no collapse then you have the MWI. Jason Hi, It seems to me that we would not ob

Re: Against Mechanism

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:15 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 12/12/2012 9:25 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 meekerdb wrote: > > On 12/11/2012 9:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >>> Everett's QM is not a theory; it's just an interpretations. >>> >> >> >> Not quite. Deutsch's propos

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/12/2012 9:25 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 12/11/2012 9:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> Everett's QM is not a theory; it's just an interpretations. >> Not quite. Deutsch's proposed experiment with reversible

Re: Against Mechanism

On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:49:16 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 12 Dec 2012, at 14:19, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > > On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:03:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > On 11 Dec 2012, at 19:17, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: Against Mechanism

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 meekerdb wrote: On 12/11/2012 9:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > >>> Everett's QM is not a theory; it's just an interpretations. >> > > >> Not quite. Deutsch's proposed experiment with reversible computation > and an AI yields different results for the CI and MWI, thus they

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12 Dec 2012, at 14:19, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:03:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Dec 2012, at 19:17, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 1:07:16 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Your servitor: > > 1) Arithmetic (comp) > >

Re: Against Mechanism

On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:03:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 11 Dec 2012, at 19:17, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > > On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 1:07:16 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > > Your servitor: > > > > 1) Arithmetic (comp) > > > > :) > > > > Br

Re: Against Mechanism

On 11 Dec 2012, at 19:17, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 1:07:16 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: Your servitor: 1) Arithmetic (comp) :) Bruno To which I add: 0) That which perceives, understands, participates, and gives rise to comp. OK. But this is just to mak

Re: Against Mechanism

On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 1:40:58 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote: > > Also, we do not experience a reality. We experience something > (consciousness, mainly) and we extrapolate reality from that, and from > theories already extrapolated. > > > > > > Bruno has it down! > > > Agree

RE: Against Mechanism

Also, we do not experience a reality. We experience something (consciousness, mainly) and we extrapolate reality from that, and from theories already extrapolated. Bruno has it down! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" g

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/11/2012 9:53 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:48 AM, meekerdb > wrote: On 12/10/2012 10:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 12/10/2012 10:16 AM, Jaso

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/11/2012 9:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote: in simpler theories, like the CTM or Everett QM. Everett's QM is not a theory; it's just an interpretations. Not quite. Deutsch's proposed experiment with reversible computation and an AI yields different results for the CI and MWI, thus t

Re: Against Mechanism

On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 1:07:16 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > Your servitor: > > 1) Arithmetic (comp) > > :) > > Bruno > To which I add: 0) That which perceives, understands, participates, and gives rise to comp. :) Craig -- You received this message because you are subscrib

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/11/2012 9:23 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:05 AM, meekerdb > wrote: On 12/11/2012 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote: On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at

Re: Against Mechanism

On 11 Dec 2012, at 18:09, meekerdb wrote: On 12/11/2012 7:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:30, meekerdb wrote: On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But why isn't "It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born rule." a good explanation. I'm all for finding a

Re: Against Mechanism

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:48 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 12/10/2012 10:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 12/10/2012 10:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM, meekerdb wrote: >> >>> On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM,

Re: Against Mechanism

On 11 Dec 2012, at 18:05, meekerdb wrote: On 12/11/2012 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote: On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/9/2012 4

Re: Against Mechanism

On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 12:23:08 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:05 AM, meekerdb > > wrote: > >> On 12/11/2012 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 10 D

Re: Against Mechanism

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:09 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 12/11/2012 7:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:30, meekerdb wrote: > > On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > But why isn't "It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born rule." a > good explanation. I'm

Re: Against Mechanism

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:05 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 12/11/2012 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote: > > On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/11/2012 7:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:30, meekerdb wrote: On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But why isn't "It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born rule." a good explanation. I'm all for finding a better explanation, i.e. a deterministic one. B

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/11/2012 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote: On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason

Re: Against Mechanism

On 10 Dec 2012, at 19:54, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > From whose perspective is there a single unique result? From my perspective! Whenever I, the simple non-godlike experimenter, send a photon (or electron) through 2 slits and it hits a photo

Re: Against Mechanism

On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:30, meekerdb wrote: On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But why isn't "It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born rule." a good explanation. I'm all for finding a better explanation, i.e. a deterministic one. But simply postulating an ensemble of wo

Re: Against Mechanism

On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote: On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/9/

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/10/2012 10:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 12/10/2012 10:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Brun

Re: Against Mechanism

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 12/10/2012 10:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> But why isn't "It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born rule." >> a good expla

Re: Against Mechanism

On Dec 10, 2012, at 12:54 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > From whose perspective is there a single unique result? From my perspective! Whenever I, the simple non-godlike experimenter, send a photon (or electron) through 2 slits and it hits a

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/10/2012 10:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM, meekerdb > wrote: On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But why isn't "It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born rule." a good explanation. I'm all for finding

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/10/2012 5:41 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:32 AM, meekerdb > wrote: On 12/9/2012 5:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Res

Re: Against Mechanism

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > But why isn't "It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born rule." a > good explanation. I'm all for finding a better explanation, i.e. a > deterministic one. But simply postulating an ense

Re: Against Mechanism

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:25 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM,

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But why isn't "It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born rule." a good explanation. I'm all for finding a better explanation, i.e. a deterministic one. But simply postulating an ensemble of worlds to make the probabilities "deterministic" in

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>

Re: Against Mechanism

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:32 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 12/9/2012 5:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb wrote: >> >>> On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason

Re: Against Mechanism

On 10 Dec 2012, at 07:32, meekerdb wrote: On 12/9/2012 5:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: And without a d

Re: Against Mechanism

On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: And without a doubt the most popular interpretation of Qua

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/9/2012 5:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: And without a doubt the most popular interpretation of Quantum Mechanics among working physicists is SUAC (S

Re: Against Mechanism

On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > And without a doubt the most popular interpretation of Quantum Mechanics >> among working physicists is SUAC (Shut Up And Calculate), >> > > That's not an interpretation at all. > > > Well for a mor

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: This reminded me a bit of "The Presumptuous Philosopher" thought experiment: It is the year 2100 and physicists have narrowed down the search for a theory of everything to only two remaining plausible candidate theories, T1 and T2 (using

Re: Against Mechanism

On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: And without a doubt the most popular interpretation of Quantum Mechanics among working physicists is SUAC (Shut Up And Calculate), That's not an interpretation at all. Well for a more philosophical statement of it see Omnes. His view is tha

Re: Against Mechanism

On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 12:37 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > >> >> If I understand your point correctly the deciding factor of an >> experiment's value is whether there is a result obtained not known before >> the experiment is conducted. > > > If a e

Re: Against Mechanism

On 09 Dec 2012, at 02:23, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: People change over time and the meaning of the pronoun associated with that changing person will change over time too, and the meaning of the pronoun will change even more suddenly if a duplicating cham

  1   2   3   4   >