On 15 Sep 2016, at 17:38, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
FWIW, I think you've solved the mind-body problem by eliminating the
body. AG
Exactly. The body/matter loss its ontology, and the mind-body problem
is reduced into the problem of justifying the laws of physics from
some s
On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 4:46:16 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 2:14:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11 Sep 2016, at 20:48, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 12:02:03 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marcha
On 13 Sep 2016, at 00:46, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
[SNIP]
On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 2:14:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 11 Sep 2016, at 20:48, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
You create them by virtue of what you DO, say in an experiment. Or
do you back off from the
On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 2:14:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 11 Sep 2016, at 20:48, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 12:02:03 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10 Sep 2016, at 19:43, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturda
On 11 Sep 2016, at 20:48, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 12:02:03 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 10 Sep 2016, at 19:43, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 1:45:56 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 09 Sep 2016, at 19:14,
On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 12:02:03 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 10 Sep 2016, at 19:43, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 1:45:56 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09 Sep 2016, at 19:14, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Frida
On 10 Sep 2016, at 23:41, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:43:55 AM UTC-6,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 1:45:56 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 09 Sep 2016, at 19:14, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, Septe
On 10 Sep 2016, at 19:43, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 1:45:56 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 09 Sep 2016, at 19:14, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 10:38:55 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 09 Sep 2016, at 16:08,
On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 8:35:02 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Alan Grayson > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal > > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 08 Sep 2016, at 21:43, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, September
On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:43:55 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 1:45:56 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09 Sep 2016, at 19:14, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 10:38:55 AM UTC-6, Bruno Ma
On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 1:45:56 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 09 Sep 2016, at 19:14, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 10:38:55 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09 Sep 2016, at 16:08, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday
On 09 Sep 2016, at 19:14, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 10:38:55 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 09 Sep 2016, at 16:08, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 7:56:27 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:46 AM,
On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 10:38:55 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 09 Sep 2016, at 16:08, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 7:56:27 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal > > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 08 S
On 09 Sep 2016, at 16:08, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 7:56:27 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 08 Sep 2016, at 21:43, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 1:15:15 PM UT
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Alan Grayson
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Alan Grayson
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
On 08 Sep 2016, at 21:43, agrayson2.
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Alan Grayson
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 08 Sep 2016, at 21:43, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 1:1
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> On 08 Sep 2016, at 21:43, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 1:15:15 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08 Sep 2016, at 18:22
On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 7:46:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 08 Sep 2016, at 21:43, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 1:15:15 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08 Sep 2016, at 18:22, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday
On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 7:56:27 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> On 08 Sep 2016, at 21:43, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 1:15:15 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 0
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 08 Sep 2016, at 21:43, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 1:15:15 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08 Sep 2016, at 18:22, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, September 8, 201
On 08 Sep 2016, at 21:43, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 1:15:15 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 08 Sep 2016, at 18:22, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 7:53:23 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 07 Sep 2016, at 20:06,
On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 1:15:15 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 08 Sep 2016, at 18:22, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 7:53:23 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 07 Sep 2016, at 20:06, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednes
On 08 Sep 2016, at 18:22, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 7:53:23 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 07 Sep 2016, at 20:06, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 11:16:38 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 06 Sep 2016, at 17:42
On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 10:22:04 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 7:53:23 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 07 Sep 2016, at 20:06, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 11:16:38 AM UTC-6, Bruno M
On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 7:53:23 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 07 Sep 2016, at 20:06, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 11:16:38 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 06 Sep 2016, at 17:42, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tues
On 07 Sep 2016, at 21:27, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 11:00:03 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 06 Sep 2016, at 12:38, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
I understand your pov. It has but one problem. You ignore the
elephant in the room; namely, those othe
On 07 Sep 2016, at 20:06, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 11:16:38 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 06 Sep 2016, at 17:42, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 4:38:53 AM UTC-6,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
I understand your pov
On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 11:00:03 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 06 Sep 2016, at 12:38, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I understand your pov. It has but one problem. You ignore the elephant in
> the room; namely, those other worlds or universes necessary for the
> outcomes n
On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 11:16:38 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 06 Sep 2016, at 17:42, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 4:38:53 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>> I understand your pov. It has but one problem. You ignore the eleph
On 06 Sep 2016, at 17:42, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 4:38:53 AM UTC-6,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
I understand your pov. It has but one problem. You ignore the
elephant in the room; namely, those other worlds or universes
necessary for the outcomes no
On 06 Sep 2016, at 12:38, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
I understand your pov. It has but one problem. You ignore the
elephant in the room; namely, those other worlds or universes
necessary for the outcomes not measured in this world to be
realized. But you have an out, stated in another p
On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 9:42:36 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 4:38:53 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>> I understand your pov. It has but one problem. You ignore the elephant in
>> the room; namely, those other worlds or unive
On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 4:38:53 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> I understand your pov. It has but one problem. You ignore the elephant in
> the room; namely, those other worlds or universes necessary for the
> outcomes not measured in this world to be realized. But you have a
I understand your pov. It has but one problem. You ignore the elephant in
the room; namely, those other worlds or universes necessary for the
outcomes not measured in this world to be realized. But you have an out,
stated in another posts. They form part of your imagination. Not good
enough fro
On 05 Sep 2016, at 19:31, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 8:08:12 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Sep 2016, at 20:27, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno, thank you for a detailed response. Most of it is above my
pay grade, but I will check some of your lin
On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 8:08:12 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 04 Sep 2016, at 20:27, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Bruno, thank you for a detailed response. Most of it is above my pay
> grade, but I will check some of your links and see what I can make of them.
>
>
> OK.
>
>
On 04 Sep 2016, at 20:27, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno, thank you for a detailed response. Most of it is above my pay
grade, but I will check some of your links and see what I can make
of them.
OK.
As for the MWI, I have a simple approach. If I went to LV and played
a slot mach
On 05 Sep 2016, at 00:52, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
Messaggio originale
Da: "Alan Grayson"
Data: 30/08/2016 18.23
A: "Everything List"
Ogg: Re: Aaronson/Penrose
Here's an article o
Messaggio originale
Da: agrayson2...@gmail.com
Data: 05/09/2016 0.52
A: "Everything List"
Cc:
Ogg: Re: Re: Aaronson/Penrose
On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
Messaggio originale
Da: "Alan Grayson"
Data:
On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
>
>
>
> Messaggio originale
> Da: "Alan Grayson" >
> Data: 30/08/2016 18.23
> A: "Everything List">
> Ogg: Re: Aaronson/Penrose
>
> Here's an article of interest.
Messaggio originale
Da: "Alan Grayson"
Data: 30/08/2016 18.23
A: "Everything List"
Ogg: Re: Aaronson/Penrose
Here's an article of interest. FWIW, I don't believe the no-signalling theorem
puts this issue to rest. AGhttp://people.uleth.ca/~kent.p
Bruno, thank you for a detailed response. Most of it is above my pay grade,
but I will check some of your links and see what I can make of them. As for
the MWI, I have a simple approach. If I went to LV and played a slot
machine for a single trial or outcome, and someone asked me what happened
On 03 Sep 2016, at 21:02, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 11:52:55 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:27 AM, wrote:
On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 11:07:09 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 31 Aug 2016, at 20:30, agrays...@gmail.com
On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 11:52:55 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:27 AM, wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 11:07:09 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 31 Aug 2016, at 20:30, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday,
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:27 AM, wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 11:07:09 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> On 31 Aug 2016, at 20:30, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 11:17:22 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30 Aug 2016, at 18
On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 11:07:09 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 31 Aug 2016, at 20:30, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 11:17:22 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 30 Aug 2016, at 18:23, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, June 1
On 31 Aug 2016, at 20:30, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 11:17:22 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 30 Aug 2016, at 18:23, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
On 11/06/2016 3:56 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 10
On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 10:29:05 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 11:17:22 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 30 Aug 2016, at 18:23, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> O
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 11:17:22 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 30 Aug 2016, at 18:23, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On 11/06/2016 3:56 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> > On 10 Jun 2016, at 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
On 30 Aug 2016, at 18:23, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
On 11/06/2016 3:56 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 10 Jun 2016, at 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> On 10/06/2016 1:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 09 Jun 2016, at 01:28, Bruce Kellett wrot
On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On 11/06/2016 3:56 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > On 10 Jun 2016, at 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >> On 10/06/2016 1:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>> On 09 Jun 2016, at 01:28, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> In other words, FPI is jus
On 11/06/2016 3:56 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jun 2016, at 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 10/06/2016 1:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2016, at 01:28, Bruce Kellett wrote:
In other words, FPI is just the statement that Alice and Bob have
to look to find out which of the (+,+'), (+,-'
On 10 Jun 2016, at 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 10/06/2016 1:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2016, at 01:28, Bruce Kellett wrote:
In other words, FPI is just the statement that Alice and Bob have
to look to find out which of the (+,+'), (+,-'), (-,+'), or (-,-')
worlds they are in.
On 10/06/2016 1:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2016, at 01:28, Bruce Kellett wrote:
In other words, FPI is just the statement that Alice and Bob have to
look to find out which of the (+,+'), (+,-'), (-,+'), or (-,-')
worlds they are in. I don't think that actually adds anything
signific
On 09 Jun 2016, at 01:28, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 9/06/2016 3:51 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Jun 2016, at 13:46, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 7/06/2016 6:57 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Jun 2016, at 04:24, Bruce Kellett wrote:
That sounds like you actually do accept the standard concept of
On 9/06/2016 3:51 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Jun 2016, at 13:46, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 7/06/2016 6:57 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Jun 2016, at 04:24, Bruce Kellett wrote:
That sounds like you actually do accept the standard concept of
non-locality in quantum mechanics! Spacelike sepa
On 07 Jun 2016, at 13:46, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 7/06/2016 6:57 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Jun 2016, at 04:24, Bruce Kellett wrote:
That sounds like you actually do accept the standard concept of
non-locality in quantum mechanics! Spacelike separated particles
can interfere probabili
On 07 Jun 2016, at 11:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 7/06/2016 6:57 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Jun 2016, at 04:24, Bruce Kellett wrote:
That is just playing with words, and Deutsch's approach reduces
the concept of "separate worlds" to meaninglessness -- the concept
becomes so fluid as t
On 07 Jun 2016, at 20:06, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 6/7/2016 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Jun 2016, at 04:24, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 7/06/2016 2:00 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Jun 2016, at 03:20, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 5/06/2016 9:44 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But it makes no s
On 6/7/2016 4:21 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 8/06/2016 2:35 am, smitra wrote:
On 07-06-2016 11:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:
That is false. As I explained earlier in the post, decoherence into
the warm thermal environment will always result in IR photons. These
escape at the velocity of light an
On 8/06/2016 2:35 am, smitra wrote:
On 07-06-2016 11:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:
That is false. As I explained earlier in the post, decoherence into
the warm thermal environment will always result in IR photons. These
escape at the velocity of light and can never be captured to be
returned -- thi
On 6/7/2016 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Jun 2016, at 04:24, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 7/06/2016 2:00 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Jun 2016, at 03:20, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 5/06/2016 9:44 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But it makes no sense to say that particles 1 and 2, when
separat
On 07-06-2016 11:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 7/06/2016 6:57 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Jun 2016, at 04:24, Bruce Kellett wrote:
That is just playing with words, and Deutsch's approach reduces
the concept of "separate worlds" to meaninglessness -- the concept
becomes so fluid as to become
On 7/06/2016 6:57 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Jun 2016, at 04:24, Bruce Kellett wrote:
That sounds like you actually do accept the standard concept of
non-locality in quantum mechanics! Spacelike separated particles can
interfere probabilistically without any possible interactions
(mechani
On 7/06/2016 6:57 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Jun 2016, at 04:24, Bruce Kellett wrote:
That is just playing with words, and Deutsch's approach reduces the
concept of "separate worlds" to meaninglessness -- the concept
becomes so fluid as to become useless. One is very much better
advised t
On 07 Jun 2016, at 04:24, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 7/06/2016 2:00 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Jun 2016, at 03:20, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 5/06/2016 9:44 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But it makes no sense to say that particles 1 and 2, when
separated, belongs to the same branches. Bell can s
On 7/06/2016 2:00 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Jun 2016, at 03:20, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 5/06/2016 9:44 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But it makes no sense to say that particles 1 and 2, when separated,
belongs to the same branches. Bell can say that because it assumes
only one branch (so to
On 06 Jun 2016, at 03:20, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 5/06/2016 9:44 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Jun 2016, at 08:39, Bruce Kellett wrote:
another instance of FPI. I think that you have to do a bit more
work on this changed approach to non-locality: I think you will
find that the argument d
On 05 Jun 2016, at 23:41, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 6/5/2016 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Jun 2016, at 01:26, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 5/06/2016 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Jun 2016, at 01:28, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 4/06/2016 4:16 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
If the world is a si
Precisely. I think there is some degree of confusion around the
terms 'local' and 'non-local'. The wave function is non-local in
that it refers to the two separated particles as a single entity,
without specifying any particular interaction between them. This is
a simple consequ
On 6/06/2016 3:18 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 6/5/2016 6:20 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 5/06/2016 9:44 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Jun 2016, at 08:39, Bruce Kellett wrote:
another instance of FPI. I think that you have to do a bit more
work on this changed approach to non-locality: I think
On 6/5/2016 6:20 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 5/06/2016 9:44 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Jun 2016, at 08:39, Bruce Kellett wrote:
another instance of FPI. I think that you have to do a bit more work
on this changed approach to non-locality: I think you will find that
the argument does not
On 5/06/2016 9:44 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Jun 2016, at 08:39, Bruce Kellett wrote:
another instance of FPI. I think that you have to do a bit more work
on this changed approach to non-locality: I think you will find that
the argument does not work like the FPI account of apparent
indet
On 6/06/2016 9:24 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 6/5/2016 4:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I don't think anyone (except Joy Christian) argues that Bell's
theorem does not apply in MWI - I certainly don't think that.
That was the central argument that sought to establish that MWI was
local -- MWIers
On 6/06/2016 7:41 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 6/5/2016 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Jun 2016, at 01:26, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Locally, Alice and Bob can simulate anything they like, and they can
simulate universes with non-local hidden variables, and predict
that within those worlds th
On 6/5/2016 4:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I don't think anyone (except Joy Christian) argues that Bell's
theorem does not apply in MWI - I certainly don't think that.
That was the central argument that sought to establish that MWI was
local -- MWIers claim that Bell assumed something in his
On 6/06/2016 7:39 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 6/4/2016 11:39 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I think you are trying to move the goal posts here The original
argument about non-locality in MWI was the contention by people like
Price, Tipler, Brown, and Christian that Bell made certain
assumptions
On 6/5/2016 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Jun 2016, at 01:26, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 5/06/2016 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Jun 2016, at 01:28, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 4/06/2016 4:16 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
If the world is a simulation, i.e. is being computed by a Turing
mac
On 6/4/2016 11:39 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 5/06/2016 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Jun 2016, at 01:28, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Sure, Bell's theorem only rules out local hidden variables. If you
simulate non-local hidden variables (i.e., get the separated
experimenters to communicate n
On 05 Jun 2016, at 08:39, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 5/06/2016 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Jun 2016, at 01:28, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Sure, Bell's theorem only rules out local hidden variables. If you
simulate non-local hidden variables (i.e., get the separated
experimenters to communi
On 05 Jun 2016, at 01:26, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 5/06/2016 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Jun 2016, at 01:28, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 4/06/2016 4:16 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
If the world is a simulation, i.e. is being computed by a Turing
machine, then the computation can implement non
On 5/06/2016 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Jun 2016, at 01:28, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Sure, Bell's theorem only rules out local hidden variables. If you
simulate non-local hidden variables (i.e., get the separated
experimenters to communicate non-locally), then of course you can
reproduce
On 5/06/2016 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Jun 2016, at 01:28, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 4/06/2016 4:16 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
If the world is a simulation, i.e. is being computed by a Turing
machine, then the computation can implement non-local hidden
variables and violate Bell's inequal
On 04 Jun 2016, at 01:28, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 4/06/2016 4:16 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 6/3/2016 1:28 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 3/06/2016 4:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
Scott Aaronson's blog on his debate with Roger Penrose is
probably of interest to the list:
“Can computers become co
On 03 Jun 2016, at 12:22, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
Bruce:
This relates to my current obsession with the universal
applicability of
Bell's theorem (and other inequalities such as that of CHSH).
Consider the
statement of the Church-Turing thesis: "the statement that our laws
of p
On 6/3/2016 4:32 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 4/06/2016 4:41 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 6/3/2016 4:44 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 3/06/2016 8:22 pm, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
Bruce:
This relates to my current obsession with the universal
applicability of
Bell's theorem (and other i
On 6/3/2016 4:28 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 4/06/2016 4:16 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 6/3/2016 1:28 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 3/06/2016 4:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
Scott Aaronson's blog on his debate with Roger Penrose is probably
of interest to the list:/
“Can computers become conscio
On 4/06/2016 4:41 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 6/3/2016 4:44 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 3/06/2016 8:22 pm, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
Bruce:
This relates to my current obsession with the universal
applicability of
Bell's theorem (and other inequalities such as that of CHSH).
Consider
On 4/06/2016 4:16 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 6/3/2016 1:28 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 3/06/2016 4:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
Scott Aaronson's blog on his debate with Roger Penrose is probably
of interest to the list:/
“Can computers become conscious?”: My reply to Roger Penrose//
//June 2nd,
On 03 Jun 2016, at 12:22, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
Bruce:
This relates to my current obsession with the universal
applicability of
Bell's theorem (and other inequalities such as that of CHSH).
Consider the
statement of the Church-Turing thesis: "the statement that our laws
of p
On 6/3/2016 4:44 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 3/06/2016 8:22 pm, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
Bruce:
This relates to my current obsession with the universal applicability of
Bell's theorem (and other inequalities such as that of CHSH).
Consider the
statement of the Church-Turing thesis:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> On 3/06/2016 4:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> Scott Aaronson's blog on his debate with Roger Penrose is probably of
> interest to the list:
>
> “Can computers become conscious?”: My reply to Roger Penrose
> June 2nd, 2016
> A few weeks ago, I
On 6/3/2016 1:28 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 3/06/2016 4:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
Scott Aaronson's blog on his debate with Roger Penrose is probably of
interest to the list:/
“Can computers become conscious?”: My reply to Roger Penrose//
//June 2nd, 2016//
//A few weeks ago, I attended the
On 3/06/2016 8:22 pm, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
Bruce:
This relates to my current obsession with the universal applicability of
Bell's theorem (and other inequalities such as that of CHSH). Consider the
statement of the Church-Turing thesis: "the statement that our laws of physics
can b
On Friday, 3 June 2016, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 3/06/2016 4:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> Scott Aaronson's blog on his debate with Roger Penrose is probably of
> interest to the list:
>
> * “Can computers become conscious?”: My reply to Roger Penrose*
> *June 2nd, 2016*
>
>
> *A few weeks ago,
Bruce:
This relates to my current obsession with the universal applicability of
Bell's theorem (and other inequalities such as that of CHSH). Consider the
statement of the Church-Turing thesis: "the statement that our laws of physics
can be simulated to any desired precision by a Turing machine
On 3/06/2016 4:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
Scott Aaronson's blog on his debate with Roger Penrose is probably of
interest to the list:/
“Can computers become conscious?”: My reply to Roger Penrose//
//June 2nd, 2016//
//A few weeks ago, I attended the Seven Pines Symposium on Fundamental
Proble
97 matches
Mail list logo
