Re: STEP 3

On 23-05-2020 23:01, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On 5/23/2020 11:51 AM, smitra wrote: My point is that identity is an intrinsic property of what something is now. The history of the of the constituent particles have no affect on the behaviors or operation of those particles. To

Re: STEP 3

> On 23 May 2020, at 22:51, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 5/23/2020 11:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 1:35 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> >> wrote: >> >> >> On 5/23/2020 1:42 AM,

Re: STEP 3

> On 23 May 2020, at 20:51, smitra wrote: > > On 23-05-2020 20:35, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: >> On 5/23/2020 1:42 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> On Friday, May 22, 2020, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> wrote: >>> On 5/22/2020 1:48 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> On Fri, May 22,

Re: Step 3

On 23-05-2020 23:01, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On 5/23/2020 11:51 AM, smitra wrote: My point is that identity is an intrinsic property of what something is now. The history of the of the constituent particles have no affect on the behaviors or operation of those particles. To

Re: STEP 3

On 5/23/2020 11:51 AM, smitra wrote: My point is that identity is an intrinsic property of what something is now. The history of the of the constituent particles have no affect on the behaviors or operation of those particles. To say the history is relevant to identity is to add an arbitrary

Re: STEP 3

On 5/23/2020 11:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 1:35 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 5/23/2020 1:42 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Friday, May 22, 2020, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

Re: STEP 3

On 23-05-2020 20:35, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On 5/23/2020 1:42 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Friday, May 22, 2020, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On 5/22/2020 1:48 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 3:27 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On

Re: STEP 3

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 1:35 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 5/23/2020 1:42 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Friday, May 22, 2020, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 5/22/2020

Re: STEP 3

On 5/23/2020 1:42 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Friday, May 22, 2020, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 5/22/2020 1:48 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 3:27 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

Re: STEP 3

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 7:48 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 23 May 2020, at 01:31, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 6:48 AM Jason Resch wrote: > >> >> If Holebo's theorem remains fundamental problems, then let's move >> everything into virtual reality, and repeat the experiment.

Re: STEP 3

> On 23 May 2020, at 01:31, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 6:48 AM Jason Resch > wrote: > > If Holebo's theorem remains fundamental problems, then let's move everything > into virtual reality, and repeat the experiment. > > In one case your

Re: STEP 3

> On 22 May 2020, at 22:48, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 3:27 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: > > > On 8/4/2019 10:44 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> On Friday, August 2, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything

Re: STEP 3

On Friday, May 22, 2020, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 5/22/2020 1:48 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 3:27 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 8/4/2019

Re: STEP 3

On 5/22/2020 1:48 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 3:27 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 8/4/2019 10:44 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Friday, August 2, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

Re: STEP 3

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 6:48 AM Jason Resch wrote: > > If Holebo's theorem remains fundamental problems, then let's move > everything into virtual reality, and repeat the experiment. > > In one case your friend's mind file is deleted and restored from a backup, > and in another he continued

Re: STEP 3

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 3:27 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 8/4/2019 10:44 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Friday, August 2, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 8/2/2019

Re: STEP 3

On 8/4/2019 10:44 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Friday, August 2, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 8/2/2019 1:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:40 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

Re: STEP 3

> On 21 Aug 2019, at 18:04, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:05 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > The fact that there is a universal Diophantine polynomial is rather > extraordinary. It means that all proofs that some machine do something can

Re: STEP 3

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:05 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > The fact that there is a universal Diophantine polynomial is rather > extraordinary. It means that all proofs that some machine do something can > be verified in less than one hundred operations (of addition and > multiplication). From

Re: STEP 3

On 19-08-2019 11:01, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Aug 2019, at 06:55, smitra wrote: On 19-08-2019 03:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 10:28 AM smitra wrote: On 16-08-2019 09:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:43 PM smitra wrote: I think you need to prove

Re: STEP 3

On 19-08-2019 07:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 2:55 PM smitra wrote: On 19-08-2019 03:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 10:28 AM smitra wrote: On 16-08-2019 09:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:43 PM smitra wrote: I think you need

Re: STEP 3

> On 19 Aug 2019, at 06:55, smitra wrote: > > On 19-08-2019 03:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 10:28 AM smitra wrote: >>> On 16-08-2019 09:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:43 PM smitra wrote: I think you need to prove that. In my understanding,

Re: STEP 3

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 2:55 PM smitra wrote: > On 19-08-2019 03:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 10:28 AM smitra wrote: > > > >> On 16-08-2019 09:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:43 PM smitra wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> I think you need to prove that.

Re: STEP 3

On 19-08-2019 03:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 10:28 AM smitra wrote: On 16-08-2019 09:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:43 PM smitra wrote: I think you need to prove that. In my understanding, A(x) = is to be interpreted as the amplitude for a wave

Re: STEP 3

On 19-08-2019 04:06, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:43 PM smitra wrote: The orthogonality can be rigorously proved as follows. If we have a single particle incident on the two slits described by a time dependent wave function psi(x,t) = 1/sqrt(2) [A(x,t) +

Re: STEP 3

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:43 PM smitra > wrote: The orthogonality can be rigorously proved as follows. If we have a single particle incident on the two slits described by a time dependent wave function psi(x,t) = 1/sqrt(2) [A(x,t) + B(x,t)] such that at A(x,0) is

Re: STEP 3

On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 10:28 AM smitra wrote: > On 16-08-2019 09:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:43 PM smitra wrote: > > > > > > I think you need to prove that. In my understanding, A(x) = is > > to be interpreted as the amplitude for a wave through slit A to get to > >

Re: STEP 3

On 16-08-2019 09:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:43 PM smitra wrote: On 16-08-2019 06:31, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 8:28 AM smitra wrote: On 13-08-2019 13:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: Of course A(x) and B(x) refer to the same point on the screen. That

Re: STEP 3

> On 15 Aug 2019, at 23:22, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 12:24 PM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > >> On 10 Aug 2019, at 20:34, Jason Resch > > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:20 AM Bruno Marchal >

Re: STEP 3

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:43 PM smitra wrote: > On 16-08-2019 06:31, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 8:28 AM smitra wrote: > > > >> On 13-08-2019 13:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >>> > >>> Of course A(x) and B(x) refer to the same point on the screen. > >> That is > >>> not a

Re: STEP 3

On 16-08-2019 06:31, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 8:28 AM smitra wrote: On 13-08-2019 13:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: Of course A(x) and B(x) refer to the same point on the screen. That is not a collapse, that is just what the notation means. A(x) and B(x) considered as the

Re: STEP 3

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 8:28 AM smitra wrote: > On 13-08-2019 13:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > Of course A(x) and B(x) refer to the same point on the screen. That is > > not a collapse, that is just what the notation means. > > A(x) and B(x) considered as the representations of |A> and |B> in

Re: STEP 3

On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 12:24 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 10 Aug 2019, at 20:34, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:20 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 9 Aug 2019, at 13:09, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >>> >>> Bruno, >>> >>> Forgive me if I have asked this before, but

Re: STEP 3

> On 15 Aug 2019, at 13:28, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 7:49 PM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > On 15 Aug 2019, at 02:54, Bruce Kellett > wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:10 PM Bruno Marchal >

Re: STEP 3

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 7:49 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 15 Aug 2019, at 02:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:10 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 12 Aug 2019, at 14:42, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> >> That is simply incorrect. I refer you again to Zurek, who works in a >>

Re: STEP 3

> On 15 Aug 2019, at 02:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:10 PM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > On 12 Aug 2019, at 14:42, Bruce Kellett > wrote: >> >> That is simply incorrect. I refer you again to Zurek, who works in a

Re: STEP 3

> On 13 Aug 2019, at 18:37, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, August 13, 2019, John Clark > wrote: > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 9:40 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > On 7 Aug 2019, at 15:08, Bruce Kellett >

Re: STEP 3

> On 13 Aug 2019, at 16:53, John Clark wrote: > > Nobody ever said there was a philosophical problem in observing the far side > of the moon, it was always just a matter of engineering, but no amount of > engineering can make your ridiculous phantom calculations real. There is a

Re: STEP 3

On 15-08-2019 06:25, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 7:23 AM smitra wrote: On 14-08-2019 00:44, Bruce Kellett wrote: You over-elaborate a simple schematic. My A(x) and B(x) are simply the amplitudes of the wave function at point x on the screen from the two slits. To get

Re: STEP 3

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 7:23 AM smitra wrote: > On 14-08-2019 00:44, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > You over-elaborate a simple schematic. My A(x) and B(x) are simply the > > amplitudes of the wave function at point x on the screen from the two > > slits. To get the intensity at x, you add the

Re: STEP 3

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:10 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 12 Aug 2019, at 14:42, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > That is simply incorrect. I refer you again to Zurek, who works in a > basically Everettian framework, but he stresses the importance of > environmental induced superselection

Re: STEP 3

On 14-08-2019 00:44, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 8:28 AM smitra wrote: On 13-08-2019 13:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: Of course A(x) and B(x) refer to the same point on the screen. That is not a collapse, that is just what the notation means. A(x) and B(x) considered as the

Re: STEP 3

> On 12 Aug 2019, at 14:42, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 7:36 PM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > On 12 Aug 2019, at 04:06, Bruce Kellett > wrote: >> >> If you do not measure which slit the photon went through, then the >>

Re: STEP 3

> On 12 Aug 2019, at 14:28, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 7:30 PM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > On 11 Aug 2019, at 14:09, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> It is not a matter of the difference between collapse or no-collapse

Re: STEP 3

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 8:28 AM smitra wrote: > On 13-08-2019 13:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > Of course A(x) and B(x) refer to the same point on the screen. That is > > not a collapse, that is just what the notation means. > > A(x) and B(x) considered as the representations of |A> and |B> in

Re: STEP 3

On 13-08-2019 13:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:41 PM smitra wrote: On 13-08-2019 05:14, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:16 PM smitra wrote: On 13-08-2019 02:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:43 AM smitra wrote: On 13-08-2019

Re: STEP 3

On Tuesday, August 13, 2019, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 9:40 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 7 Aug 2019, at 15:08, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> >> >> What exactly is the difference between something that it is >> impossible in principle to detect and something that does not exist?

Re: STEP 3

On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 9:40 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: On 7 Aug 2019, at 15:08, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > >> What exactly is the difference between something that it is impossible > in principle to detect and something that does not exist? > *> It is like the difference between the human

Re: STEP 3

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:41 PM smitra wrote: > On 13-08-2019 05:14, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:16 PM smitra wrote: > > > >> On 13-08-2019 02:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:43 AM smitra wrote: > >>> > On 13-08-2019 01:41, Bruce Kellett

Re: STEP 3

On 13-08-2019 10:21, Philip Thrift wrote: On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 7:43:51 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote: Thing is that the interference we can observe at some position x on the screen is Re[], which for general x is nonzero despite the fact that = 0. Saibal To a probability (or measure)

Re: STEP 3

On 13-08-2019 05:14, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:16 PM smitra wrote: On 13-08-2019 02:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:43 AM smitra wrote: On 13-08-2019 01:41, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 9:09 AM smitra wrote: On 12-08-2019

Re: STEP 3

On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 7:43:51 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote: > > > Thing is that the interference we can observe at some position x on the > screen is Re[], which for general x is nonzero despite the > fact that = 0. > > Saibal > To a probability (or measure) theorist, one making the

Re: STEP 3

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:16 PM smitra wrote: > On 13-08-2019 02:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:43 AM smitra wrote: > > > >> On 13-08-2019 01:41, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 9:09 AM smitra wrote: > >>> > On 12-08-2019 08:29, Bruce Kellett

Re: STEP 3

On 13-08-2019 02:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:43 AM smitra wrote: On 13-08-2019 01:41, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 9:09 AM smitra wrote: On 12-08-2019 08:29, Bruce Kellett wrote: Look at this another way. It is just an illustration of

Re: STEP 3

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:43 AM smitra wrote: > On 13-08-2019 01:41, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 9:09 AM smitra wrote: > > > >> On 12-08-2019 08:29, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >>> > >>> Look at this another way. It is just an illustration of > >>> complementarity. Measuring

Re: STEP 3

On 13-08-2019 01:41, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 9:09 AM smitra wrote: On 12-08-2019 08:29, Bruce Kellett wrote: Look at this another way. It is just an illustration of complementarity. Measuring which slit the photon went through is a position measurement at the slits.

Re: STEP 3

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 9:09 AM smitra wrote: > On 12-08-2019 08:29, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > Look at this another way. It is just an illustration of > > complementarity. Measuring which slit the photon went through is a > > position measurement at the slits. Measuring the interference

Re: STEP 3

On 12-08-2019 08:29, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 4:09 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 3:56 PM smitra wrote: On 12-08-2019 04:06, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 3:48 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: In the sense you mention I am OK, but we have a

Re: STEP 3

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 7:36 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 12 Aug 2019, at 04:06, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > If you do not measure which slit the photon went through, then the > superposition of slits is not broken by decoherence. > > Decoherence break things only if there is a collapse. > That

Re: STEP 3

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 7:30 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 11 Aug 2019, at 14:09, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > It is not a matter of the difference between collapse or no-collapse > models -- it is a matter of the basic interpretation of what Everett's > "relative states" actually are, and why the

Re: STEP 3

> On 12 Aug 2019, at 04:06, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 3:48 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > On 9 Aug 2019, at 13:15, Bruce Kellett > wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:49 PM Bruno Marchal > >

Re: STEP 3

> On 11 Aug 2019, at 14:09, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:25 PM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > On 9 Aug 2019, at 02:59, Bruce Kellett > wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 6:50 PM Bruno Marchal > >

Re: STEP 3

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 4:09 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 3:56 PM smitra wrote: > >> On 12-08-2019 04:06, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 3:48 AM Bruno Marchal >> > wrote: >> > >> > In the sense you mention I am OK, but we have a slight vocabulary >> >

Re: STEP 3

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 3:55 PM smitra wrote: > On 11-08-2019 01:19, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 6:54 AM smitra wrote: > > > > Why not? There is only one computational state for the well-defined > > algorithm at any particular moment -- so only one "awareness". > >

Re: STEP 3

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 3:56 PM smitra wrote: > On 12-08-2019 04:06, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 3:48 AM Bruno Marchal > > wrote: > > > > In the sense you mention I am OK, but we have a slight vocabulary > > problem. Not important, if you agree that measurement are > >

Re: STEP 3

On 12-08-2019 04:06, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 3:48 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: On 9 Aug 2019, at 13:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:49 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: On 9 Aug 2019, at 04:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: From: BRUNO MARCHAL On 8 Aug 2019, at 13:59,

Re: STEP 3

On 11-08-2019 01:19, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 6:54 AM smitra wrote: On 10-08-2019 10:20, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 6:16 PM smitra wrote: On 10-08-2019 09:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: But when you cannot reach, or ignore, some of this larger number of

Re: STEP 3

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 3:48 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 9 Aug 2019, at 13:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:49 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 9 Aug 2019, at 04:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> From: Bruno Marchal >> >> On 8 Aug 2019, at 13:59, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>

Re: STEP 3

On 8/11/2019 10:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 8 Aug 2019, at 21:11, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On 8/8/2019 6:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Let us use “superposition of state” instead. The word “world” has too much metaphysical implicit connotations. In that case, if the

Re: STEP 3

> On 8 Aug 2019, at 21:11, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 8/8/2019 6:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> Let us use “superposition of state” instead. The word “world” has too much >> metaphysical implicit connotations. >> In that case, if the computer run a

Re: STEP 3

> On 9 Aug 2019, at 13:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:49 PM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > On 9 Aug 2019, at 04:07, Bruce Kellett > wrote: >> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 8 Aug 2019, at

Re: STEP 3

> On 10 Aug 2019, at 03:25, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 08:53:39AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 3:22 AM Jason Resch wrote: >> >>On Friday, August 9, 2019, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:59 PM Jason Resch >>

Re: STEP 3

> On 10 Aug 2019, at 20:34, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:20 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > >> On 9 Aug 2019, at 13:09, Jason Resch > > wrote: >> >> >>> >>> Bruno, >>> >>> Forgive me if I have asked this before,

Re: STEP 3

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:25 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 9 Aug 2019, at 02:59, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 6:50 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> > On 7 Aug 2019, at 21:04, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> > >> > On 8/7/2019

Re: STEP 3

On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 6:54 AM smitra wrote: > On 10-08-2019 10:20, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 6:16 PM smitra wrote: > > > >> On 10-08-2019 09:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >>> > >>> But when you cannot reach, or ignore, some of this larger number > >> of > >>> degrees of

Re: STEP 3

On 10-08-2019 10:20, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 6:16 PM smitra wrote: On 10-08-2019 09:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: But when you cannot reach, or ignore, some of this larger number of degrees of freedom, you end up with a mixed state. That is how decoherence reduces the pure

Re: STEP 3

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:20 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 9 Aug 2019, at 13:09, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:22 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 8 Aug 2019, at 17:41, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019, 5:51 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> >>> On 8

Re: STEP 3

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 2:34:36 AM UTC-5, smitra wrote: > > The brain is an object that exists in our universe which > is described by quantum mechanics. To some degree, we suppose. The obvious example of a QM event connected to to a brain: Put neural-probing devices in Alice's and

Re: STEP 3

On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 6:16 PM smitra wrote: > On 10-08-2019 09:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > But when you cannot reach, or ignore, some of this larger number of > > degrees of freedom, you end up with a mixed state. That is how > > decoherence reduces the pure state to a mixture on

Re: STEP 3

On 10-08-2019 09:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 5:34 PM smitra wrote: On 10-08-2019 00:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 3:22 AM Jason Resch wrote: On Friday, August 9, 2019, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:59 PM Jason Resch wrote:

Re: STEP 3

On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 5:51 PM smitra wrote: > On 09-08-2019 13:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: SMITRA > > > >> On 09-08-2019 07:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >>> > >>> What is nonsense? The fact that separate states for the two slits > >> does > >>> not aid comprehension? Or the fact that

Re: STEP 3

On 09-08-2019 13:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: From: SMITRA On 09-08-2019 07:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:16 PM smitra wrote: On 09-08-2019 05:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: It is really quite simple. If a state is a sum of two components, |psi> = (|A> + |B>), then we

Re: STEP 3

On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 5:34 PM smitra wrote: > On 10-08-2019 00:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 3:22 AM Jason Resch > > wrote: > > > >> On Friday, August 9, 2019, Bruce Kellett > >> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:59 PM Jason Resch > >> wrote: > >> > >> What

Re: STEP 3

On 10-08-2019 00:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 3:22 AM Jason Resch wrote: On Friday, August 9, 2019, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:59 PM Jason Resch wrote: What role do you see decoherence playing in consciousness? In other words, could you explain why

Re: STEP 3

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 8:25:48 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 08:53:39AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 3:22 AM Jason Resch > wrote: > > > > On Friday, August 9, 2019, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 9,

Re: STEP 3

On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 08:53:39AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 3:22 AM Jason Resch wrote: > > On Friday, August 9, 2019, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:59 PM Jason Resch > wrote: > > > What role do you see

Re: STEP 3

On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 3:22 AM Jason Resch wrote: > On Friday, August 9, 2019, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:59 PM Jason Resch wrote: >> >>> >>> What role do you see decoherence playing in consciousness? In other >>> words, could you explain why shedding IR photons into

Re: STEP 3

On Friday, August 9, 2019, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:59 PM Jason Resch wrote: > >> >> What role do you see decoherence playing in consciousness? In other >> words, could you explain why shedding IR photons into an external >> environment necessary for the mind to be

Re: STEP 3

> On 9 Aug 2019, at 14:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:19 PM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > Contra-lucid dreams are impossible. Bruce could still claim that all dreams > are lucid, (like day-dreams) and this corroborates his statement that he >

Re: STEP 3

> On 9 Aug 2019, at 13:09, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:22 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > >> On 8 Aug 2019, at 17:41, Jason Resch > > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019, 5:51 AM Bruno Marchal >

Re: STEP 3

> On 9 Aug 2019, at 12:31, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 5:02:11 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Nobody experience worlds. You only experience one consciousness, but that > does not mean that other people are conscious, even when you cannot interact > with

Re: STEP 3

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:19 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Contra-lucid dreams are impossible. Bruce could still claim that all > dreams are lucid, (like day-dreams) and this corroborates his statement > that he knows when he is awake, which indeed presupposes a non > digital-mechanist theory of

Re: STEP 3

From: *smitra* mailto:smi...@zonnet.nl>> On 09-08-2019 07:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:16 PM smitra > wrote: > >> On 09-08-2019 05:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> It is really quite simple. If a state is a sum of two components, >>> |psi> = (|A> +

Re: STEP 3

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:39 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 9 Aug 2019, at 03:58, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > > On 8 Aug 2019, at 13:59, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:51 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 8 Aug 2019, at 11:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> On

Re: STEP 3

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 9:04 PM Jason Resch wrote: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 1:49 AM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 2:59 PM Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 2:15 PM Jason Resch wrote: >>> You say this is merely a way of representing what is

Re: STEP 3

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:59 PM Jason Resch wrote: > > What role do you see decoherence playing in consciousness? In other > words, could you explain why shedding IR photons into an external > environment necessary for the mind to be conscious? > Consciousness is a classical phenomenon since

Re: STEP 3

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:49 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 9 Aug 2019, at 04:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > > On 8 Aug 2019, at 13:59, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:51 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > If the superposition are not relevant, then I don’t have any

Re: STEP 3

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:22 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 8 Aug 2019, at 17:41, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019, 5:51 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 8 Aug 2019, at 11:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:21 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 8 Aug 2019,

Re: STEP 3

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 1:49 AM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 2:59 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 2:15 PM Jason Resch wrote: >> >>> >>> You say this is merely a way of representing what is happening (and >>> implying what I suppose to be happening is not

Re: STEP 3

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 1:15 AM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:52 PM Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Thursday, August 8, 2019, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 2:15 PM Jason Resch wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:19 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:

  1   2   3   4   5   6   >