Re: Wallace on non-locality

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 5:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> Then it can't distinguish between the 2, then science has no use for >> ​"​ >> *THE* 1p view" and it's just a waste of time. ​ > > > > ​> ​ > Of course they can distinguish it. It is as easy as seeing the

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On 19 Jul 2017, at 00:55, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​​I don't know what you're talking about, I haven't even figured out what "the 1p view" is supposed to be much less agreed that such a thing exists.​ ​> ​Then you

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> ​I don't know what you're talking about, I haven't even figured out what >> "the 1p view" is supposed to be much less agreed that such a thing exists. >> ​ >> > > ​> ​ > Then you suffer from amnesia, or it is just

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On 17 Jul 2017, at 23:29, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>​>>​ ​In the 3p description, obviously, both are you​ ​>> ​​In any description as far as I can tell.​ ​> ​Obviously not. From the 1p view of each copies, as you have

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> >>> ​>>​ >>> ​In the 3p description, obviously, both are you >>> ​ >>> >> ​>> ​ >> ​In any description as far as I can tell.​ > > ​> ​ > Obviously not. From the 1p view of each copies, as you have already > agreed, they

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On 17 Jul 2017, at 18:19, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 5:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​​that other fellow over there has the exact same memories as you do, so which one is you?​ ​> ​In the 3p description, obviously, both are you ​In any description

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 5:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> ​that other fellow over there has the exact same memories as you do, so >> which one is you?​ > > > ​> ​ > In the 3p description, obviously, both are you > ​In any description as far as I can tell.​ ​> ​ > In

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On 16 Jul 2017, at 19:24, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​I don't know about Bruce but what John Clark missed is reading dumb stuff, and that's a good thing because life is too short for that, especially in something

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> I don't know about Bruce but what John Clark missed is reading dumb >> stuff, and that's a good thing because life is too short for that, >> especially in something that claims to be as rigorous >> ​ ​ >> as any >>

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On 16 Jul 2017, at 01:18, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/07/2017 9:48 pm, David Nyman wrote: On 15 July 2017 at 03:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: I think the possibility of non-quantum consciousness in a non- quantum world makes the success of this program less likely.

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On 15 Jul 2017, at 20:54, Brent Meeker wrote: On 7/15/2017 1:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: We, the universal machines, are distributed in an infinity of (arithmetical) computations below our substitution level on which our First Person experience is undetermined, and the laws to predict

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On 15 Jul 2017, at 19:29, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​John Clark misses this by stopping at UDA step 3 (not included), and Bruce seems to stop at step 4 (not included). I don't know about Bruce but what John Clark

Re: Wallace on non-locality

Hi David, As we agree on many things, I jump directly where we might either disagree or improve the understanding. On 15 Jul 2017, at 16:39, David Nyman wrote: On 15 July 2017 at 15:11, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Jul 2017, at 14:20, David Nyman wrote: On 15 July 2017

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On 15/07/2017 9:48 pm, David Nyman wrote: On 15 July 2017 at 03:22, Bruce Kellett > wrote: I think the possibility of non-quantum consciousness in a non-quantum world makes the success of this program less likely. ​Why?

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On 15/07/2017 9:48 pm, David Nyman wrote: On 15 July 2017 at 03:22, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 15/07/2017 10:34 am, David Nyman wrote: On 15 July 2017 at 00:46, Bruce Kellett

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On 7/15/2017 4:48 AM, David Nyman wrote: ​I'm not sure I follow your logic here. The point I was making is ​that "the physical world, with all its complexity" looks highly constrained, something that is indeed widely noted - a put up job, to quote Fred Hoyle. It has further been noted that

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On 7/15/2017 1:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: We, the universal machines, are distributed in an infinity of (arithmetical) computations below our substitution level on which our First Person experience is undetermined, and the laws to predict the observable must be given by a statistic on all

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​> ​ > John Clark misses this by stopping at UDA step 3 (not included), and Bruce > seems to stop at step 4 (not included). > I don't know about Bruce but what John Clark missed is reading dumb stuff, and that's a good

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: > ​> ​ > One way to see that consciousness and physics are not tightly constrained > is to note that our consciousness seems adapted to living on a flat Earth > in which Newtonian mechanics prevails. ​ No mystery in

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On 15 July 2017 at 15:11, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 15 Jul 2017, at 14:20, David Nyman wrote: > > On 15 July 2017 at 09:26, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 15 Jul 2017, at 06:19, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >> >>> >>> On 7/14/2017 7:22 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On 15 Jul 2017, at 14:20, David Nyman wrote: On 15 July 2017 at 09:26, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Jul 2017, at 06:19, Brent Meeker wrote: On 7/14/2017 7:22 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: I think Brent has commented that consciousness needs a world to be conscious of -- that

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On 15 July 2017 at 09:26, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 15 Jul 2017, at 06:19, Brent Meeker wrote: > > >> >> On 7/14/2017 7:22 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> I think Brent has commented that consciousness needs a world to be >>> conscious of -- that doesn't, of itself,

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On 15 July 2017 at 05:19, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 7/14/2017 7:22 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> I think Brent has commented that consciousness needs a world to be >> conscious of -- that doesn't, of itself, constrain that world in any way. >> Even more so if the

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On 15 July 2017 at 03:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 15/07/2017 10:34 am, David Nyman wrote: > > On 15 July 2017 at 00:46, Bruce Kellett < > bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> >> On 15/07/2017 4:00 am, David Nyman wrote: >> >> ISTM, on

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On 15 Jul 2017, at 06:19, Brent Meeker wrote: On 7/14/2017 7:22 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: I think Brent has commented that consciousness needs a world to be conscious of -- that doesn't, of itself, constrain that world in any way. Even more so if the consciousness is a product of

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On 7/14/2017 7:22 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: I think Brent has commented that consciousness needs a world to be conscious of -- that doesn't, of itself, constrain that world in any way. Even more so if the consciousness is a product of evolution in that world. Evolution cannot produce anything

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On 15/07/2017 10:34 am, David Nyman wrote: On 15 July 2017 at 00:46, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 15/07/2017 4:00 am, David Nyman wrote: ISTM, on reflection, that my tentative suggestion that the alternative cases are in

Re: Wallace on non-locality

me mixed, but the combined state of (A ⋃ B) remains pure. "The state A >> itself does not change at all in the process; what changes are the >> non-local states of successively larger regions including A." The spreading >> of entanglement by decoherence is thus a proce

Re: Wallace on non-locality

ly larger regions including A." The spreading of entanglement by decoherence is thus a process that introduces a degree of non-locality. Wallace illustrates this in his Figure 8.1 on page 307. Then we get to measurements on two independent particles, and, finally, two entangled particle

Re: Wallace on non-locality

es not > suffice to fix the density operator of (the union of) A and B. Some of the > properties of (the union of) A and B are genuinely non-local: they have > local physical manifestations only if we arrange appropriate dynamics.". > > > That is a good extract from the he

Re: Wallace on non-locality

ical manifestations only if we arrange appropriate dynamics.". That is a good extract from the heart of his exposition. In a way, it is more a matter of words than of substance -- his description of 'nonseparability' is essentially what I have been calling 'non- locality', and Wallace himsel

Wallace on non-locality

sical manifestations only if we arrange appropriate dynamics.". That is a good extract from the heart of his exposition. In a way, it is more a matter of words than of substance -- his description of 'nonseparability' is essentially what I have been calling 'non-locality', and Wallace himse