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: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

> On 24 Sep 2019, at 15:40, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:22 PM Jason Resch <mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > This Halloween will mark 6 years since you agreed with Step 3, > > BULLSHIT! > > This is the entire post and

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 2:24:05 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 4:06 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: > > *> According to Brent, Laplace was aware that due to inherent measurement >> inaccuracies we cannot know the exact configuation of the universe at any >> time,

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 4:06 PM Alan Grayson wrote: *> According to Brent, Laplace was aware that due to inherent measurement > inaccuracies we cannot know the exact configuation of the universe at any > time, so in fact we can't predict its past and future with any accuracy > (only for

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 12:32:13 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 2:27 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 12:19:40 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:59 AM Alan Grayson >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 12:32:13 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 2:27 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 12:19:40 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:59 AM Alan Grayson >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 2:27 PM Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 12:19:40 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:59 AM Alan Grayson >> wrote: >> >> >> Sean Carroll: So Isaac Newton came up with the rules of classical mechanics in the

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

t;> So if you know the wave function of the universe exactly and you have >>> infinite calculational capacity you could predict the past and the future >>> with perfect accuracy. >>> But! what you're predicting is all of the branches of the wavefunction >>> so a

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

're predicting is all of the branches of the wavefunction so >> any individual person inside the wavefunction still experiences apparently >> random events. >> >> Right, so *you can't predict what will happen to you even if you can >> predict what will happen to the enti

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 7:23 PM Jason Resch wrote: >> I think you need to indicate how, out of the set of all computations, >> you can pick the correct ones from the incorrect ones without the help of >> matter that obeys the laws of physics. >> > > *> How do you suppose the laws of physics pick

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 8:40:57 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:22 PM Jason Resch > wrote: > > > *This Halloween will mark 6 years since you agreed with Step 3,* > > > *BULLSHIT! * > > This is the entire post and even

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:22 PM Jason Resch wrote: > *This Halloween will mark 6 years since you agreed with Step 3,* *BULLSHIT! * This is the entire post and even though 6 years has passed I stand by every word and wouldn't change anything: On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Jason Re

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

> On 24 Sep 2019, at 03:33, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 9/23/2019 4:23 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> Yet, assuming an arithmetical world governed by arithmetical laws, you can >> derive the appearance of a physical universe governed by physical laws. > > If only it

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

> On 24 Sep 2019, at 00:43, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:41 AM Jason Resch > wrote: > > Jason thinks I must be suffering from buyer's remorse because I "spent > $80,000 when he is already saved by arithmetic" he concludes this because on >

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

if you think that Carroll’s got it right, you do accept step 3, (as Carroll > > accept it, according to Jason) > > If Jason thinks Carroll accepts it then Jason is full of shit. And I've read > Carroll's book, you haven't. You two should actually read the book, then > we

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

hu, Sep 19, 2019 at 6:41 AM Jason Resch > <mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> > Perhaps Carroll's explanation might help others who've struggled to get >> > past Step 3. >> >> If Jason Resch reads Carroll's book as John Clark has done then Jaso

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

> On 23 Sep 2019, at 12:50, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 6:31 AM Bruno Marchal <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > > > if you think that Carroll’s got it right, you do accept step 3, (as Carroll > > accept it, according to Jason) >

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On 9/23/2019 4:23 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Yet, assuming an arithmetical world governed by arithmetical laws, you can derive the appearance of a physical universe governed by physical laws. If only it were so.  So far it's hand waving aspiration. Brent -- You received this message because

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:44 PM John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:41 AM Jason Resch wrote: > > Jason thinks I must be suffering from buyer's remorse because I "spent > $80,000 when he is already saved by arithmetic" he concludes this because > on December 26 2012 at 12:34 PM I said

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:41 AM Jason Resch wrote: Jason thinks I must be suffering from buyer's remorse because I "spent $80,000 when he is already saved by arithmetic" he concludes this because on December 26 2012 at 12:34 PM I said " *A better question is do the natural numbers need a reason

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On 9/23/2019 12:45 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 2:32:11 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 9/23/2019 8:59 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > But Laplace was wrong in one very important respect. One can never > know the exact position and momentum of any particle,

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 1:32:11 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 9/23/2019 8:59 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > But Laplace was wrong in one very important respect. One can never > > know the exact position and momentum of any particle, let alone the > > entire universe. There are no

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

ar who "they" are that failed to make a prediction, and even > more important it's crystal clear exactly what the correct prediction would > have turned out to be. > I did a few days ago, but you didn't respond. I'll post it again: This Halloween will mark 6 years since you

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:23 AM Jason Resch wrote: *> I guess you never clicked the link I provided at the start of this > thread. * I've done a lot better than click on a link that provides a brief synopsis, I've spent hours reading every page in the man's entire book and you and Bruno

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 2:32:11 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 9/23/2019 8:59 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > But Laplace was wrong in one very important respect. One can never > > know the exact position and momentum of any particle, let alone the > > entire universe. There are no

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On 9/23/2019 8:59 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: But Laplace was wrong in one very important respect. One can never know the exact position and momentum of any particle, let alone the entire universe. There are no perfect measurements! Laplace knew that. His point was that the future (and the

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 9:23:29 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:51 AM John Clark > wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 6:31 AM Bruno Marchal > > wrote: >> >> *> if you think that Carroll’s got it right,

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 9:23:29 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:51 AM John Clark > wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 6:31 AM Bruno Marchal > > wrote: >> >> *> if you think that Carroll’s got it right,

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:31 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 22 Sep 2019, at 11:43, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 6:41 AM Jason Resch wrote: > > *> Perhaps Carroll's explanation might help others who've struggled to get >> past Step 3.* > > >

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:51 AM John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 6:31 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > *> if you think that Carroll’s got it right, you do accept step 3, (as >> Carroll accept it, according to Jason) * > > > If Jason thinks Carroll accepts it

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

th perfect knowledge of the universe and it's evolution one >> could not make future predictions about what one will experience due to >> duplication: >> >> https://youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be=TP5W2MG8Jjs=1h5m >> >> Perhaps Carroll's explanation might

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 6:31 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: *> if you think that Carroll’s got it right, you do accept step 3, (as > Carroll accept it, according to Jason) * If Jason thinks Carroll accepts it then Jason is full of shit. And I've read Carroll's book, you haven't. You two

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

> On 22 Sep 2019, at 11:43, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 6:41 AM Jason Resch <mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > Perhaps Carroll's explanation might help others who've struggled to get > > past Step 3. > > If Jason Resch read

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

t make future predictions about what one will experience due to >> duplication: >> >> https://youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be=TP5W2MG8Jjs=1h5m >> <https://youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be=TP5W2MG8Jjs=1h5m> >> >> Perhaps Carroll's explanation might help oth

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 11:21 AM Jason Resch wrote: *> Were you being wrong or silly when you accepted it 6 years ago?* > I don't know, it depends on what "it" was 6 years ago. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On Sunday, September 22, 2019, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 6:41 AM Jason Resch wrote: > > *> Perhaps Carroll's explanation might help others who've struggled to get >> past Step 3.* > > > If Jason Resch reads Carroll's book as John Clark has done t

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 6:41 AM Jason Resch wrote: *> Perhaps Carroll's explanation might help others who've struggled to get > past Step 3.* If Jason Resch reads Carroll's book as John Clark has done then Jason Resch will find that Carroll goes into considerable detail explainin

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

/watch?feature=youtu.be=TP5W2MG8Jjs=1h5m > > Perhaps Carroll's explanation might help others who've struggled to get > past Step 3. > > > Let us pray ... > > > Bruno > > > As Feyerabend saw (and foresaw) science is now religion. When a scientist proceeds from the

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

be=TP5W2MG8Jjs=1h5m> > > Perhaps Carroll's explanation might help others who've struggled to get past > Step 3. Let us pray ... Bruno > > Jason > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. &

Re: Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

n might help others who've struggled to get > past Step 3. > > Jason > There Sean Carroll meets Deepak Chopra. @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop rec

Sean Carroll gets past "Step 3" of the UDA

d not make future predictions about what one will experience due to duplication: https://youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be=TP5W2MG8Jjs=1h5m Perhaps Carroll's explanation might help others who've struggled to get past Step 3. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to

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

assical ignorance -- you are > either in the branch with the live cat, or the branch with the dead cat. Yes, like after the WM-duplication, I am either in Moscow or in Washington. Pure classical ignorance. > Opening the box does not change your relative state, or collapse anything. Ex

Re: STEP 3

noseconds. After that time, your position is one of classical ignorance -- you are either in the branch with the live cat, or the branch with the dead cat. Opening the box does not change your relative state, or collapse anything. There is no "you" that is in a superposition of these

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

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >