subject:"Why do particles decay randomly\?"

On 14 May 2013, at 03:32, meekerdb wrote:

Right. It's not computing all possible functions, it's executing
all possible programs - most of which don't terminate and so don't
compute a function at all.

It computes a partial function, undefined on some arguments, but
defined on possible other arguments. That's why we have to dovetail.
Carfeul because computing a non computable function, on an argument
where it is not defined, gives an infinite computation which can be a
relevant (for our consciousness) computable process. A bit like
emulating a steady evolving physical universe: it is a non stopping
program. By the intensional Church thesis (provable from the usual
one), the UD does not just compute function, it emulates all possible
ways to compute those functions, and thus it emulates all Turing
emulable processes. Amazing, but trivial, the UD computes the
factorial function is all manner, which includes programs emulating
you in passing.

Bruno

Brent

On 5/13/2013 3:30 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
So all possible functions are computed equally? ISTM that some
functions would take an eternity to compute and that the number of
such vastly outnumber the recursively enumerable ones.

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:24 PM, meekerdb
wrote:

On 5/13/2013 2:49 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Does the UD compute *all* functions or only those that are
recursively enumerable?

It computes all of them.

Brent

AFAIK, the latter, as a set, has a measure zero as a subset of the
former. This is one reason why I worry about the viability of UDA
(and AUDA), it postulates a severely restricted subset of the
possible functions as ontologically primitive without a good
argument as to why.
Just because we finite mortals can only counts in terms of natural
numbers is not an argument that All-that-Exists is limited to that
standard. Man is NOT the measure of all things!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in
the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/K7E-Vfwj4QU/unsubscribe?hl=en
.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3336 / Virus Database: 3162/6320 - Release Date:
05/13/13

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?



On 14 May 2013, at 00:57, Russell Standish wrote:


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 03:24:09PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:

On 5/13/2013 2:49 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Does the UD compute *all* functions or only those that are
recursively enumerable?


It computes all of them.

Brent



Sorry - it does not compute all functions, just all partially
recursive ones. As Stephen says, there are only countably many
recursive functions, but a continuum of functions from N->N.

As for Stephen's question of why we might want to single out that set
- it so happens that that set is closed under diagonalisation - which
is Goedel's "miracle".

Its an aesthetic thing - just like Einstein's theory of general
relativity is the simplest, and most elegant, formulation of geometric
spacetime theories of gravitation.

It doesn't mean its right, of course, but elegant theories have a
habit of  being more likely right than inelegant ones.

PS - I am unsure whether the set of partially recursive functions is
the only such set closed under diagonalisation - do you know Bruno?


It should be possible to build some ad hoc other sets. Some sets, like  
those related to truth and knowledge can be said to be also immune,  
but this is due to the fact that they cannot be defined formally. It  
is a different sort of diagonalization immunity. Many non computable  
set will be like that too. I am pretty sure, that the set of partial  
recursive functions (with or without oracle) is (are) the only non  
trivial , effective (RE) definable sets close for diagonalization.


Bruno






Cheers

--


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On 14 May 2013, at 00:30, Stephen Paul King wrote:

So all possible functions are computed equally? ISTM that some
functions would take an eternity to compute and that the number of
such vastly outnumber the recursively enumerable ones.

Non-computable function cannot be computed. But we can dovetail on
them, and so can play a possible role as inputs for computable
function. But consciousness is related to the computation. In the
limit, on which the 1-indterminacy bears, the halting oracle does play
a role, like with the end of the dinosaurs ...

Bruno

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:24 PM, meekerdb
wrote:

On 5/13/2013 2:49 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Does the UD compute *all* functions or only those that are
recursively enumerable?

It computes all of them.

Brent

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On 13 May 2013, at 23:49, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Does the UD compute *all* functions or only those that are
recursively enumerable? AFAIK, the latter, as a set, has a measure
zero as a subset of the former. This is one reason why I worry about
the viability of UDA (and AUDA), it postulates a severely restricted
subset of the possible functions as ontologically primitive without
a good argument as to why.

The why is the why of the comp hypothesis. Church thesis is very
solid, and the evidences are that brains operates computably.

Just because we finite mortals can only counts in terms of natural
numbers is not an argument that All-that-Exists is limited to that
standard. Man is NOT the measure of all things!

But with comp, the universal machine is.

Bruno

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:02 PM, meekerdb
wrote:
I don't know. It would seem you would want to believe that if you
were going to say "yes" to the doctor, since the doctor is relying
functionalism to ensure the replacement works. But Bruno's UD
computes all functions and he theorizes that 1p consciousness
consists of a sequence of states in this computation, if I
understand him correctly.

Brent

On 5/13/2013 10:39 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
We should add that computationalism postulates that consciousness
is a process that can be exactly specified by a recursively
enumerable function. No?

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:16 PM, meekerdb
wrote:

On 5/13/2013 5:41 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:05 PM, meekerdb
wrote:

On 5/12/2013 9:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

If your mom ate something different while pregnant with you, such
that you
developed with different atoms, does that mean someone else would
have been
born in your place and you wouldn't be conscious? Or if one
unexpressed
gene was different, would it be someone other than you looking
through those
eyes? What if one gene were different, but it was of little
consequence, or
what if multiple genes were different, etc. How much of the
circumstances
would have to change for you to never have been born? If you admit
that
different matter or different genes would not make it such that you
were

never born, then are you not all your siblings as well?

That doesn't follow. The most common theory of why you are you is
that the
structure of your brain and body encode computations that are
peculiar to
you. You are determined by the structure that effects these
computations.
This is independent of the particular atoms and molecules and even
a lot of
the structure. As Bruno puts it, it depends on the level of
substitution.
Just because there is a level, e.g. atoms, that makes no
difference, it

doesn't follow that there is not a difference at another level.
It's hard to have this discussion with a single word for "you". 1p-
you

and 3p-you might make it easier. The 3p-you is characterised by a
number of physical processes that we more or less understand. For
example, if I fall and lose a bit of skin from my knee that won't
change much, but there is possible a relatively small set of neurons
that can be changed to alter my personality. But the idea that the
1p-you is determined at a substitution level seems silly to me

I said it was the most common theory. Not that it was right.
Computationalism is the theory that there is no substitution level
which doesn't instantiate you1 so long as the computation is the
same.

(unless
we can find some fundamental process by which the 1p arises).
Otherwise, I find it easier to believe that there is only one 1p
conscious entity that gets instantiated on everyone (and possible
everything), at all times, in all possible universes.

Even assuming computationalism there can be different computations
and hence different 1p. As I understandBruno's theory,
consciousness is not an entity, it's described by a relation
between threads of computation.

Brent

Telmo.

Brent

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

For more options, visit https:/

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?



On 14 May 2013, at 00:24, meekerdb wrote:


On 5/13/2013 2:49 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Does the UD compute *all* functions or only those that are  
recursively enumerable?


It computes all of them.


It computes only the computable one. But it generates all inputs and  
streams, like in the WM duplication, it generates all sequences of W  
and M, so the UD computes all computable functions, on all inputs/ 
oracles.


By comp our mind states are UD accessible, as they are brought by some  
computations.


Bruno





Brent

AFAIK, the latter, as a set, has a measure zero as a subset of the  
former. This is one reason why I worry about the viability of UDA  
(and AUDA), it postulates a severely restricted subset of the  
possible functions as ontologically primitive without a good  
argument as to why.
Just because we finite mortals can only counts in terms of natural  
numbers is not an argument that All-that-Exists is limited to that  
standard. Man is NOT the measure of all things!


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?



On 13 May 2013, at 20:02, meekerdb wrote:

I don't know.  It would seem you would want to believe that if you  
were going to say "yes" to the doctor, since the doctor is relying  
functionalism to ensure the replacement works.  But Bruno's UD  
computes all functions and he theorizes that 1p consciousness  
consists of a sequence of states in this computation, if I  
understand him correctly.


Yes. One computation hereby can make possible to a consciousness to  
manifest itself, by comp. But from the 1p of that consciousness, his  
immediate future depends on all the infinity of computations going  
through its current state.


Bruno





Brent


On 5/13/2013 10:39 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
We should add that computationalism postulates that consciousness  
is a process that can be exactly specified by arecursively  
enumerable function. No?



On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:16 PM, meekerdb   
wrote:

On 5/13/2013 5:41 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:05 PM, meekerdb   
wrote:

On 5/12/2013 9:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:


If your mom ate something different while pregnant with you, such  
that you
developed with different atoms, does that mean someone else would  
have been
born in your place and you wouldn't be conscious?  Or if one  
unexpressed
gene was different, would it be someone other than you looking  
through those
eyes?  What if one gene were different, but it was of little  
consequence, or
what if multiple genes were different, etc.  How much of the  
circumstances
would have to change for you to never have been born?  If you admit  
that
different matter or different genes would not make it such that you  
were

never born, then are you not all your siblings as well?


That doesn't follow.  The most common theory of why you are you is  
that the
structure of your brain and body encode computations that are  
peculiar to
you.  You are determined by the structure that effects these  
computations.
This is independent of the particular atoms and molecules and even  
a lot of
the structure.  As Bruno puts it, it depends on the level of  
substitution.
Just because there is a level, e.g. atoms, that makes no  
difference, it

doesn't follow that there is not a difference at another level.
It's hard to have this discussion with a single word for "you". 1p- 
you

and 3p-you might make it easier. The 3p-you is characterised by a
number of physical processes that we more or less understand. For
example, if I fall and lose a bit of skin from my knee that won't
change much, but there is possible a relatively small set of neurons
that can be changed to alter my personality. But the idea that the
1p-you is determined at a substitution level seems silly to me

I said it was the most common theory.  Not that it was right.  
Computationalism is the theory that there is no substitution level  
which doesn't instantiate you1 so long as the computation is the  
same.



(unless
we can find some fundamental process by which the 1p arises).
Otherwise, I find it easier to believe that there is only one 1p
conscious entity that gets instantiated on everyone (and possible
everything), at all times, in all possible universes.

Even assuming computationalism there can be different computations  
and hence different 1p.  As I understand Bruno's theory,  
consciousness is not an entity, it's described by a relation  
between threads of computation.


Brent



Telmo.

Brent



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On 13 May 2013, at 19:39, Stephen Paul King wrote:

We should add that computationalism postulates that consciousness is
a process that can be exactly specified by a recursively enumerable
function. No?

Well, OK, but with Church Thesis, we can just say "computable
function", or "mechanically generable" if you look at a function as a
set of input-outputs. The graph of a computable function is
recursively enumerable, or sigma_1.

Bruno

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:16 PM, meekerdb
wrote:

On 5/13/2013 5:41 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:05 PM, meekerdb
wrote:

On 5/12/2013 9:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

never born, then are you not all your siblings as well?

That doesn't follow. The most common theory of why you are you is
that the
structure of your brain and body encode computations that are
peculiar to
you. You are determined by the structure that effects these
computations.
This is independent of the particular atoms and molecules and even a
lot of
the structure. As Bruno puts it, it depends on the level of
substitution.
Just because there is a level, e.g. atoms, that makes no difference,
it

doesn't follow that there is not a difference at another level.
It's hard to have this discussion with a single word for "you". 1p-you
and 3p-you might make it easier. The 3p-you is characterised by a
number of physical processes that we more or less understand. For
example, if I fall and lose a bit of skin from my knee that won't
change much, but there is possible a relatively small set of neurons
that can be changed to alter my personality. But the idea that the
1p-you is determined at a substitution level seems silly to me

I said it was the most common theory. Not that it was right.
Computationalism is the theory that there is no substitution level
which doesn't instantiate you1 so long as the computation is the same.

Even assuming computationalism there can be different computations
and hence different 1p. As I understand Bruno's theory,
consciousness is not an entity, it's described by a relation between
threads of computation.

Brent

Telmo.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups

"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an

email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

Therefore we might argue that only programs that halt can contribute to our
"polls". This unfortunately does not allow for a true 3p.


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Stephen Paul King <
kingstephenp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> OK, so that would require that all programs would
> be simultaneously 'available' for inspection for a measure to be defined
> over them, no? "When" can that occur? Never! A non-halting program can not
> be polled for a solution.
>
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:32 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  Right.  It's not computing all possible functions, it's executing all
>> possible programs - most of which don't terminate and so don't compute a
>> function at all.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> On 5/13/2013 3:30 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>> So all possible functions are computed equally? ISTM that some functions
>> would take an eternity to compute and that the number of such vastly
>> outnumber the recursively enumerable ones.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:24 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/13/2013 2:49 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>>
 Does the UD compute *all* functions or only those that are recursively
 enumerable?

>>>
>>>  It computes all of them.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>
>>>  AFAIK, the latter, as a set, has a measure zero as a subset of the
 former. This is one reason why I worry about the viability of UDA (and
 AUDA), it postulates a severely restricted subset of the possible functions
 as ontologically primitive without a good argument as to why.
 Just because we finite mortals can only counts in terms of natural
 numbers is not an argument that All-that-Exists is limited to that
 standard. Man is NOT the measure of all things!

>>>
>>>   --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/K7E-Vfwj4QU/unsubscribe?hl=en
>>> .
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this message.
>>
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2013.0.3336 / Virus Database: 3162/6320 - Release Date: 05/13/13
>>
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/K7E-Vfwj4QU/unsubscribe?hl=en
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

OK, so that would require that all programs would
be simultaneously 'available' for inspection for a measure to be defined
over them, no? "When" can that occur? Never! A non-halting program can not
be polled for a solution.


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:32 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  Right.  It's not computing all possible functions, it's executing all
> possible programs - most of which don't terminate and so don't compute a
> function at all.
>
> Brent
>
>
> On 5/13/2013 3:30 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> So all possible functions are computed equally? ISTM that some functions
> would take an eternity to compute and that the number of such vastly
> outnumber the recursively enumerable ones.
>
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:24 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>> On 5/13/2013 2:49 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>>> Does the UD compute *all* functions or only those that are recursively
>>> enumerable?
>>>
>>
>>  It computes all of them.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>>  AFAIK, the latter, as a set, has a measure zero as a subset of the
>>> former. This is one reason why I worry about the viability of UDA (and
>>> AUDA), it postulates a severely restricted subset of the possible functions
>>> as ontologically primitive without a good argument as to why.
>>> Just because we finite mortals can only counts in terms of natural
>>> numbers is not an argument that All-that-Exists is limited to that
>>> standard. Man is NOT the measure of all things!
>>>
>>
>>   --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/K7E-Vfwj4QU/unsubscribe?hl=en
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
> No virus found in this message.
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.3336 / Virus Database: 3162/6320 - Release Date: 05/13/13
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/K7E-Vfwj4QU/unsubscribe?hl=en
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

Right.  It's not computing all possible functions, it's executing all possible programs - 
most of which don't terminate and so don't compute a function at all.


Brent

On 5/13/2013 3:30 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
So all possible functions are computed equally? ISTM that some functions would take an 
eternity to compute and that the number of such vastly outnumber the recursively 
enumerable ones.



On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:24 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 5/13/2013 2:49 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Does the UD compute *all* functions or only those that are recursively 
enumerable?


It computes all of them.

Brent


AFAIK, the latter, as a set, has a measure zero as a subset of the 
former. This
is one reason why I worry about the viability of UDA (and AUDA), it 
postulates a
severely restricted subset of the possible functions as ontologically 
primitive
without a good argument as to why.
Just because we finite mortals can only counts in terms of natural 
numbers is
not an argument that All-that-Exists is limited to that standard. Man 
is NOT the
measure of all things!


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups

"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/K7E-Vfwj4QU/unsubscribe?hl=en.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything 
List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2013.0.3336 / Virus Database: 3162/6320 - Release Date: 05/13/13



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

Hi Russel,

Thank you for these remarks! I would see that closure under diagonalization
is important, but i wonder if there is a bit of neglect to the uniqueness
of this set. There are some indications that there may exist a continuum of
sets with this property if we assume some version of the anti-catorian
hypothesis (for example see http://www.plover.com/misc/CSF/sdarticle.pdf )
or, (I think) equivalently) some weakening of the Tennenbaum Theorem.


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 03:24:09PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
> > On 5/13/2013 2:49 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> > >Does the UD compute *all* functions or only those that are
> > >recursively enumerable?
> >
> > It computes all of them.
> >
> > Brent
> >
>
> Sorry - it does not compute all functions, just all partially
> recursive ones. As Stephen says, there are only countably many
> recursive functions, but a continuum of functions from N->N.
>
> As for Stephen's question of why we might want to single out that set
> - it so happens that that set is closed under diagonalisation - which
> is Goedel's "miracle".
>
> Its an aesthetic thing - just like Einstein's theory of general
> relativity is the simplest, and most elegant, formulation of geometric
> spacetime theories of gravitation.
>
> It doesn't mean its right, of course, but elegant theories have a
> habit of  being more likely right than inelegant ones.
>
> PS - I am unsure whether the set of partially recursive functions is
> the only such set closed under diagonalisation - do you know Bruno?
>
> Cheers
>
> --
>
>
> 
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
> 
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/K7E-Vfwj4QU/unsubscribe?hl=en
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-13 Thread Russell Standish

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 03:24:09PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
> On 5/13/2013 2:49 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> >Does the UD compute *all* functions or only those that are
> >recursively enumerable?
> 
> It computes all of them.
> 
> Brent
> 

Sorry - it does not compute all functions, just all partially
recursive ones. As Stephen says, there are only countably many
recursive functions, but a continuum of functions from N->N.

As for Stephen's question of why we might want to single out that set
- it so happens that that set is closed under diagonalisation - which
is Goedel's "miracle".

Its an aesthetic thing - just like Einstein's theory of general
relativity is the simplest, and most elegant, formulation of geometric
spacetime theories of gravitation.

It doesn't mean its right, of course, but elegant theories have a
habit of  being more likely right than inelegant ones.

PS - I am unsure whether the set of partially recursive functions is
the only such set closed under diagonalisation - do you know Bruno?

Cheers

-- 

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

So all possible functions are computed equally? ISTM that some functions
would take an eternity to compute and that the number of such vastly
outnumber the recursively enumerable ones.


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:24 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 5/13/2013 2:49 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>> Does the UD compute *all* functions or only those that are recursively
>> enumerable?
>>
>
> It computes all of them.
>
> Brent
>
>
>  AFAIK, the latter, as a set, has a measure zero as a subset of the
>> former. This is one reason why I worry about the viability of UDA (and
>> AUDA), it postulates a severely restricted subset of the possible functions
>> as ontologically primitive without a good argument as to why.
>> Just because we finite mortals can only counts in terms of natural
>> numbers is not an argument that All-that-Exists is limited to that
>> standard. Man is NOT the measure of all things!
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/**
> topic/everything-list/K7E-**Vfwj4QU/unsubscribe?hl=en
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com
> .
> To post to this group, send email to 
> everything-list@googlegroups.**com
> .
> Visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
> For more options, visit 
> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out
> .
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?


On 5/13/2013 2:49 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Does the UD compute *all* functions or only those that are recursively enumerable? 


It computes all of them.

Brent

AFAIK, the latter, as a set, has a measure zero as a subset of the former. This is one 
reason why I worry about the viability of UDA (and AUDA), it postulates a severely 
restricted subset of the possible functions as ontologically primitive without a good 
argument as to why.
Just because we finite mortals can only counts in terms of natural numbers is not an 
argument that All-that-Exists is limited to that standard. Man is NOT the measure of all 
things!


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

Does the UD compute *all* functions or only those that are recursively
enumerable? AFAIK, the latter, as a set, has a measure zero as a subset of
the former. This is one reason why I worry about the viability of UDA (and
AUDA), it postulates a severely restricted subset of the possible functions
as ontologically primitive without a good argument as to why.
Just because we finite mortals can only counts in terms of natural numbers
is not an argument that All-that-Exists is limited to that standard. Man is
NOT the measure of all things!

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:02 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  I don't know.  It would seem you would want to believe that if you were
> going to say "yes" to the doctor, since the doctor is relying functionalism
> to ensure the replacement works.  But Bruno's UD computes all functions and
> he theorizes that 1p consciousness consists of a sequence of states in this
> computation, if I understand him correctly.
>
> Brent
>
>
>
> On 5/13/2013 10:39 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> We should add that computationalism postulates that consciousness is a
> process that can be exactly specified by a recursively enumerable function.
> No?
>
>
>  On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:16 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 5/13/2013 5:41 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:05 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>>
 On 5/12/2013 9:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

 If your mom ate something different while pregnant with you, such that
 you
 developed with different atoms, does that mean someone else would have
 been
 born in your place and you wouldn't be conscious?  Or if one unexpressed
 gene was different, would it be someone other than you looking through
 those
 eyes?  What if one gene were different, but it was of little
 consequence, or
 what if multiple genes were different, etc.  How much of the
 circumstances
 would have to change for you to never have been born?  If you admit that
 different matter or different genes would not make it such that you were
 never born, then are you not all your siblings as well?

 That doesn't follow.  The most common theory of why you are you is that
 the
 structure of your brain and body encode computations that are peculiar
 to
 you.  You are determined by the structure that effects these
 computations.
 This is independent of the particular atoms and molecules and even a
 lot of
 the structure.  As Bruno puts it, it depends on the level of
 substitution.
 Just because there is a level, e.g. atoms, that makes no difference, it
 doesn't follow that there is not a difference at another level.

>>> It's hard to have this discussion with a single word for "you". 1p-you
>>> and 3p-you might make it easier. The 3p-you is characterised by a
>>> number of physical processes that we more or less understand. For
>>> example, if I fall and lose a bit of skin from my knee that won't
>>> change much, but there is possible a relatively small set of neurons
>>> that can be changed to alter my personality. But the idea that the
>>> 1p-you is determined at a substitution level seems silly to me
>>>
>>
>>  I said it was the most common theory.  Not that it was right.
>> Computationalism is the theory that there is no substitution level which
>> doesn't instantiate you1 so long as the computation is the same.
>>
>>
>>  (unless
>>> we can find some fundamental process by which the 1p arises).
>>> Otherwise, I find it easier to believe that there is only one 1p
>>> conscious entity that gets instantiated on everyone (and possible
>>> everything), at all times, in all possible universes.
>>>
>>
>>  Even assuming computationalism there can be different computations and
>> hence different 1p.  As I understand Bruno's theory, consciousness is not
>> an entity, it's described by a relation between threads of computation.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>>
>>> Telmo.
>>>
>>>  Brent

>>>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/K7E-Vfwj4QU/unsubscribe?hl=en
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

I don't know. It would seem you would want to believe that if you were going to say "yes"
to the doctor, since the doctor is relying functionalism to ensure the replacement works.
But Bruno's UD computes all functions and he theorizes that 1p consciousness consists of a
sequence of states in this computation, if I understand him correctly.

Brent

On 5/13/2013 10:39 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
We should add that computationalism postulates that consciousness is a process that can
be exactly specified by a recursively enumerable function. No?

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:16 PM, meekerdb > wrote:

On 5/13/2013 5:41 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:05 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 5/12/2013 9:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

It's hard to have this discussion with a single word for "you". 1p-you
and 3p-you might make it easier. The 3p-you is characterised by a
number of physical processes that we more or less understand. For
example, if I fall and lose a bit of skin from my knee that won't
change much, but there is possible a relatively small set of neurons
that can be changed to alter my personality. But the idea that the
1p-you is determined at a substitution level seems silly to me

I said it was the most common theory. Not that it was right.
Computationalism is
the theory that there is no substitution level which doesn't instantiate
you1 so
long as the computation is the same.

Even assuming computationalism there can be different computations and hence
different 1p. As I understand Bruno's theory, consciousness is not an
entity, it's
described by a relation between threads of computation.

Brent

Telmo.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

We should add that computationalism postulates that consciousness is a
process that can be exactly specified by a recursively enumerable function.
No?


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:16 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 5/13/2013 5:41 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:05 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/12/2013 9:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> If your mom ate something different while pregnant with you, such that
>>> you
>>> developed with different atoms, does that mean someone else would have
>>> been
>>> born in your place and you wouldn't be conscious?  Or if one unexpressed
>>> gene was different, would it be someone other than you looking through
>>> those
>>> eyes?  What if one gene were different, but it was of little
>>> consequence, or
>>> what if multiple genes were different, etc.  How much of the
>>> circumstances
>>> would have to change for you to never have been born?  If you admit that
>>> different matter or different genes would not make it such that you were
>>> never born, then are you not all your siblings as well?
>>>
>>>
>>> That doesn't follow.  The most common theory of why you are you is that
>>> the
>>> structure of your brain and body encode computations that are peculiar to
>>> you.  You are determined by the structure that effects these
>>> computations.
>>> This is independent of the particular atoms and molecules and even a lot
>>> of
>>> the structure.  As Bruno puts it, it depends on the level of
>>> substitution.
>>> Just because there is a level, e.g. atoms, that makes no difference, it
>>> doesn't follow that there is not a difference at another level.
>>>
>> It's hard to have this discussion with a single word for "you". 1p-you
>> and 3p-you might make it easier. The 3p-you is characterised by a
>> number of physical processes that we more or less understand. For
>> example, if I fall and lose a bit of skin from my knee that won't
>> change much, but there is possible a relatively small set of neurons
>> that can be changed to alter my personality. But the idea that the
>> 1p-you is determined at a substitution level seems silly to me
>>
>
> I said it was the most common theory.  Not that it was right.
> Computationalism is the theory that there is no substitution level which
> doesn't instantiate you1 so long as the computation is the same.
>
>
>  (unless
>> we can find some fundamental process by which the 1p arises).
>> Otherwise, I find it easier to believe that there is only one 1p
>> conscious entity that gets instantiated on everyone (and possible
>> everything), at all times, in all possible universes.
>>
>
> Even assuming computationalism there can be different computations and
> hence different 1p.  As I understand Bruno's theory, consciousness is not
> an entity, it's described by a relation between threads of computation.
>
> Brent
>
>
>
>> Telmo.
>>
>>  Brent
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>> email to 
>>> everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com
>>> .
>>> To post to this group, send email to 
>>> everything-list@googlegroups.**com
>>> .
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>>> group/everything-list?hl=en
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/**
> topic/everything-list/K7E-**Vfwj4QU/unsubscribe?hl=en
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com
> .
> To post to this group, send email to 
> everything-list@googlegroups.**com
> .
> Visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
> For more options, visit 
> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out
> .
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?


On 5/13/2013 5:41 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:05 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

On 5/12/2013 9:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:


If your mom ate something different while pregnant with you, such that you
developed with different atoms, does that mean someone else would have been
born in your place and you wouldn't be conscious?  Or if one unexpressed
gene was different, would it be someone other than you looking through those
eyes?  What if one gene were different, but it was of little consequence, or
what if multiple genes were different, etc.  How much of the circumstances
would have to change for you to never have been born?  If you admit that
different matter or different genes would not make it such that you were
never born, then are you not all your siblings as well?


That doesn't follow.  The most common theory of why you are you is that the
structure of your brain and body encode computations that are peculiar to
you.  You are determined by the structure that effects these computations.
This is independent of the particular atoms and molecules and even a lot of
the structure.  As Bruno puts it, it depends on the level of substitution.
Just because there is a level, e.g. atoms, that makes no difference, it
doesn't follow that there is not a difference at another level.

It's hard to have this discussion with a single word for "you". 1p-you
and 3p-you might make it easier. The 3p-you is characterised by a
number of physical processes that we more or less understand. For
example, if I fall and lose a bit of skin from my knee that won't
change much, but there is possible a relatively small set of neurons
that can be changed to alter my personality. But the idea that the
1p-you is determined at a substitution level seems silly to me


I said it was the most common theory.  Not that it was right. Computationalism is the 
theory that there is no substitution level which doesn't instantiate you1 so long as the 
computation is the same.



(unless
we can find some fundamental process by which the 1p arises).
Otherwise, I find it easier to believe that there is only one 1p
conscious entity that gets instantiated on everyone (and possible
everything), at all times, in all possible universes.


Even assuming computationalism there can be different computations and hence different 
1p.  As I understand Bruno's theory, consciousness is not an entity, it's described by a 
relation between threads of computation.


Brent



Telmo.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-13 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:05 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
> On 5/12/2013 9:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
> If your mom ate something different while pregnant with you, such that you
> developed with different atoms, does that mean someone else would have been
> born in your place and you wouldn't be conscious?  Or if one unexpressed
> gene was different, would it be someone other than you looking through those
> eyes?  What if one gene were different, but it was of little consequence, or
> what if multiple genes were different, etc.  How much of the circumstances
> would have to change for you to never have been born?  If you admit that
> different matter or different genes would not make it such that you were
> never born, then are you not all your siblings as well?
>
>
> That doesn't follow.  The most common theory of why you are you is that the
> structure of your brain and body encode computations that are peculiar to
> you.  You are determined by the structure that effects these computations.
> This is independent of the particular atoms and molecules and even a lot of
> the structure.  As Bruno puts it, it depends on the level of substitution.
> Just because there is a level, e.g. atoms, that makes no difference, it
> doesn't follow that there is not a difference at another level.

It's hard to have this discussion with a single word for "you". 1p-you
and 3p-you might make it easier. The 3p-you is characterised by a
number of physical processes that we more or less understand. For
example, if I fall and lose a bit of skin from my knee that won't
change much, but there is possible a relatively small set of neurons
that can be changed to alter my personality. But the idea that the
1p-you is determined at a substitution level seems silly to me (unless
we can find some fundamental process by which the 1p arises).
Otherwise, I find it easier to believe that there is only one 1p
conscious entity that gets instantiated on everyone (and possible
everything), at all times, in all possible universes.

Telmo.

> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-13 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 12 May 2013, at 22:41, John Mikes wrote:


Brent: this back-and-forth is a marvelous game to go crazy.
If I weren't me who else would be me and who whould I be?
(Only for the IRS!) It points to me at those stupid sci-fi-s about  
transportation to Moskow/etc. - or another Universe, and 'living  
there' - am I still myself? No way. If I 'live' that is.

We change continuously and remember only our partial self.

I find it acceptable that we are computations (in different aspects  
from just mathematical) i.e. complexities of unknown compositions.  
THAT you may call SOUL, if you like. At death it transforms into  
other complexities (I didn't say: completely decomposes) but MY  
complexity is gone.


You don't know that. In which theory?





My brain is a tool.


One reason more to doubt that you complexity is gone. Especially that  
if comp is true, or just Everett, your first person *you* has an  
infinity of brains, and brains is what make your consciousness locally  
effective with respect to some other universal being, so you lost a  
brain only relatively to a reality (not all).


Bruno




Have a good day

John M




On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 2:50 PM, meekerdb   
wrote:

On 5/12/2013 10:33 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:05 PM, meekerdb   
wrote:

On 5/12/2013 9:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:


If your mom ate something different while pregnant with you, such  
that you developed with different atoms, does that mean someone  
else would have been born in your place and you wouldn't be  
conscious?  Or if one unexpressed gene was different, would it be  
someone other than you looking through those eyes?  What if one  
gene were different, but it was of little consequence, or what if  
multiple genes were different, etc.  How much of the circumstances  
would have to change for you to never have been born?  If you  
admit that different matter or different genes would not make it  
such that you were never born, then are you not all your siblings  
as well?


That doesn't follow.  The most common theory of why you are you is  
that the structure of your brain and body encode computations that  
are peculiar to you.


If we work from the theory that "you are a computation", there is  
still the question of why you are experiencing life as this  
particular computation vs. that other computation.


But if "you" are a particular computation, the question has a  
tautological answer.  It would be a contradiction for you to be some  
other computation.


This is one of the main goals of a theory of personal identity, to  
rightly delineate persons and define the scope of experiences that  
belong to them.  Theories of mind and theories of theories personal  
identity are related to each other but they are separate fields.


  You are determined by the structure that effects these  
computations.  This is independent of the particular atoms and  
molecules and even a lot of the structure.  As Bruno puts it, it  
depends on the level of substitution.  Just because there is a  
level, e.g. atoms, that makes no difference, it doesn't follow that  
there is not a difference at another level.


That was not what I was questioning.  My question is more like: if  
a different sperm (besides the one that led to you) had made it,  
what would you expect to be experiencing right now?  Would you  
expect to be experiencing nothing at all?


The latter, in a metaphorical way, since I wouldn't be expecting or  
experiencing anything because this particular "I" wouldn't exist.   
It's like asking, "If you died in your sleep would you wake up dead?"


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 1:50 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 5/12/2013 10:33 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:05 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 5/12/2013 9:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>  If your mom ate something different while pregnant with you, such that
>> you developed with different atoms, does that mean someone else would have
>> been born in your place and you wouldn't be conscious?  Or if one
>> unexpressed gene was different, would it be someone other than you looking
>> through those eyes?  What if one gene were different, but it was of little
>> consequence, or what if multiple genes were different, etc.  How much of
>> the circumstances would have to change for you to never have been born?  If
>> you admit that different matter or different genes would not make it such
>> that you were never born, then are you not all your siblings as well?
>>
>>
>>  That doesn't follow.  The most common theory of why you are you is that
>> the structure of your brain and body encode computations that are peculiar
>> to you.
>>
>
>  If we work from the theory that "you are a computation", there is still
> the question of why you are experiencing life as this particular
> computation vs. that other computation.
>
>
> But if "you" are a particular computation, the question has a tautological
> answer.  It would be a contradiction for you to be some other computation.
>
>
There is a tautological component of "why am I me", sure, but that isn't
quite what I am getting at:

It's 1900, before you exist.  Several billion people are born between 1900
and 2000.  What are the odds of experiencing life through any one of those
people's eyes?


>   This is one of the main goals of a theory of personal identity, to
> rightly delineate persons and define the scope of experiences that belong
> to them.  Theories of mind and theories of theories personal identity are
> related to each other but they are separate fields.
>
>
>>   You are determined by the structure that effects these computations.
>> This is independent of the particular atoms and molecules and even a lot of
>> the structure.  As Bruno puts it, it depends on the level of
>> substitution.  Just because there is a level, e.g. atoms, that makes no
>> difference, it doesn't follow that there is not a difference at another
>> level.
>>
>
>  That was not what I was questioning.  My question is more like: if a
> different sperm (besides the one that led to you) had made it, what would
> you expect to be experiencing right now?  Would you expect to be
> experiencing nothing at all?
>
>
> The latter, in a metaphorical way, since I wouldn't be expecting or
> experiencing anything because this particular "I" wouldn't exist.  It's
> like asking, "If you died in your sleep would you wake up dead?"
>

By that logic though, if I highlighted *this text* as blue instead of green
then you wouldn't exist, and you owe your life to me.  But I think you
believe that even if I had highlighted it as blue, you would still be
conscious and alive right now (just conscious of something different).  So
how far can we stretch that difference without giving up the experience?

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-12 Thread John Mikes

Brent: this back-and-forth is a marvelous game to go crazy.
If I weren't me who else would be me and who whould I be?
(Only for the IRS!) It points to me at those stupid sci-fi-s about
transportation to Moskow/etc. - or another Universe, and 'living there' -
am I still myself? No way. If I 'live' that is.
We change continuously and remember only our partial self.

I find it acceptable that we are computations (in different aspects from
just mathematical) i.e. complexities of unknown compositions. THAT you may
call SOUL, if you like. At death it transforms into other complexities (I
didn't say: completely decomposes) but MY complexity is gone. My brain is a
tool.
Have a good day

John M




On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 2:50 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 5/12/2013 10:33 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:05 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 5/12/2013 9:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>  If your mom ate something different while pregnant with you, such that
>> you developed with different atoms, does that mean someone else would have
>> been born in your place and you wouldn't be conscious?  Or if one
>> unexpressed gene was different, would it be someone other than you looking
>> through those eyes?  What if one gene were different, but it was of little
>> consequence, or what if multiple genes were different, etc.  How much of
>> the circumstances would have to change for you to never have been born?  If
>> you admit that different matter or different genes would not make it such
>> that you were never born, then are you not all your siblings as well?
>>
>>
>>  That doesn't follow.  The most common theory of why you are you is that
>> the structure of your brain and body encode computations that are peculiar
>> to you.
>>
>
>  If we work from the theory that "you are a computation", there is still
> the question of why you are experiencing life as this particular
> computation vs. that other computation.
>
>
> But if "you" are a particular computation, the question has a tautological
> answer.  It would be a contradiction for you to be some other computation.
>
>   This is one of the main goals of a theory of personal identity, to
> rightly delineate persons and define the scope of experiences that belong
> to them.  Theories of mind and theories of theories personal identity are
> related to each other but they are separate fields.
>
>
>>   You are determined by the structure that effects these computations.
>> This is independent of the particular atoms and molecules and even a lot of
>> the structure.  As Bruno puts it, it depends on the level of
>> substitution.  Just because there is a level, e.g. atoms, that makes no
>> difference, it doesn't follow that there is not a difference at another
>> level.
>>
>
>  That was not what I was questioning.  My question is more like: if a
> different sperm (besides the one that led to you) had made it, what would
> you expect to be experiencing right now?  Would you expect to be
> experiencing nothing at all?
>
>
> The latter, in a metaphorical way, since I wouldn't be expecting or
> experiencing anything because this particular "I" wouldn't exist.  It's
> like asking, "If you died in your sleep would you wake up dead?"
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-12 Thread meekerdb


On 5/12/2013 10:33 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:05 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 5/12/2013 9:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:


If your mom ate something different while pregnant with you, such that you
developed with different atoms, does that mean someone else would have been 
born in
your place and you wouldn't be conscious?  Or if one unexpressed gene was
different, would it be someone other than you looking through those eyes?  
What if
one gene were different, but it was of little consequence, or what if 
multiple
genes were different, etc.  How much of the circumstances would have to 
change for
you to never have been born?  If you admit that different matter or 
different genes
would not make it such that you were never born, then are you not all your 
siblings
as well?


That doesn't follow.  The most common theory of why you are you is that the
structure of your brain and body encode computations that are peculiar to 
you.


If we work from the theory that "you are a computation", there is still the question of 
why you are experiencing life as this particular computation vs. that other computation.


But if "you" are a particular computation, the question has a tautological answer.  It 
would be a contradiction for you to be some other computation.


This is one of the main goals of a theory of personal identity, to rightly delineate 
persons and define the scope of experiences that belong to them.  Theories of mind and 
theories of theories personal identity are related to each other but they are separate 
fields.


  You are determined by the structure that effects these computations.  
This is
independent of the particular atoms and molecules and even a lot of the structure. 
As Bruno puts it, it depends on the level of substitution.  Just because there is a

level, e.g. atoms, that makes no difference, it doesn't follow that there 
is not a
difference at another level.


That was not what I was questioning.  My question is more like: if a different sperm 
(besides the one that led to you) had made it, what would you expect to be experiencing 
right now?  Would you expect to be experiencing nothing at all?


The latter, in a metaphorical way, since I wouldn't be expecting or experiencing anything 
because this particular "I" wouldn't exist. It's like asking, "If you died in your sleep 
would you wake up dead?"


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-12 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 12 May 2013, at 19:33, Jason Resch wrote:

My question is more like: if a different sperm (besides the one that  
led to you) had made it, what would you expect to be experiencing  
right now?  Would you expect to be experiencing nothing at all?


Lol

Does the soul of the sperm go to Heaven, after it misses the rendez- 
vous?


It might never have leave It perhaps.

How could we know?

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:21 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  You keep assuming that because I don't vow allegiance to the MWI faith
>> that I reject it.  I said I liked it, I'm just not compelled to accept it
>> so long has it has not empirical advantage.
>>
>>
> Okay, I understand that position.  However, I think right now we are in a
> state similar to that time when heliocentrism and geocentrism were debated,
> but before either was proven by observations of parallax.  Neither theory
> has suffered a fatal blow, but there is a theory that is a little simpler.
> Would the creation of a working quantum computer that can factor thousand
> digit numbers (which not even an Earth-sized classical computer could) be a
> parallax moment for you?
>
>

Brent,

I would be interested to hear your answer on this.  It seems relevant given
John Clark's new thread on the creation of a quantum computer that is
faster than a classical computer.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-12 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 12 May 2013, at 18:14, John Clark wrote:

All religions are stupid but some religions are stupider (and more  
dangerous) than others.


All the religions using propaganda, arguments per authority, invalid  
reasoning, violence, etc. ... sure, all those religions are bad.


Science does not exist, but there is a scientific attitude, basically  
admitting ignorance, leading to explorations and researches.


That attitude is domain independent.

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:14 AM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Sat, May 11, 2013  Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>  > Nothing can truly be proven nor disproven,
>>
>
> Then you must believe that the word "proof" should be expunged from the
> English language as there would be no time when it would be appropriate to
> use it. I disagree and rather like the word.
>

Proof, like truth, is still a useful word in that it expresses an ideal we
chase but never obtain.


>
> > The people you are describing are those that hold the constancy of their
>> beliefs in higher regard than the truth of their beliefs.
>>
>
> Yes exactly, the "it's true for me" people, in other words religious
> believers, in other words morons.
>

So you have no religious beliefs whatsoever?  (Perhaps not if you define
religious beliefs as any belief John Clark considers moronic...)


>   > Meme's which hold self-preservation and constancy above all else, are
>> those that will persist through time.
>>
>
> Yes just like viruses, and like viruses some memes kill their hosts as in
> Islamic suicide bombers.
>
> > I don't know that science is usually correct.
>>
>
> Then I have a advantage over you because I did know that science is
> usually correct.
>

Since when has science usually been correct?  Since 1000 B.C.,  since 1700,
since 1905, since 1920, since 10 years ago?


>
> > Even our leading theories, QM and GR, we feel are not fully correct
>> since they don't work well together.
>>
>
> And science is probably correct in thinking that both these theories work
> beautifully everywhere except for 2 places, the singularity at the center
> of a Black Hole and the instant of the Big Bang, and science is certainly
> correct in thinking that more work is required before we understand those
> things.
>

I think you are mistaken if you think modern science has arrived at the
truth.  I don't think most scientists believe that.



> > Here you are lumping all religious belief together
>>
>
> All religions are stupid
>

What about my religion?

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:05 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 5/12/2013 9:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>  If your mom ate something different while pregnant with you, such that
> you developed with different atoms, does that mean someone else would have
> been born in your place and you wouldn't be conscious?  Or if one
> unexpressed gene was different, would it be someone other than you looking
> through those eyes?  What if one gene were different, but it was of little
> consequence, or what if multiple genes were different, etc.  How much of
> the circumstances would have to change for you to never have been born?  If
> you admit that different matter or different genes would not make it such
> that you were never born, then are you not all your siblings as well?
>
>
> That doesn't follow.  The most common theory of why you are you is that
> the structure of your brain and body encode computations that are peculiar
> to you.
>

If we work from the theory that "you are a computation", there is still the
question of why you are experiencing life as this particular computation
vs. that other computation.  This is one of the main goals of a theory of
personal identity, to rightly delineate persons and define the scope of
experiences that belong to them.  Theories of mind and theories of theories
personal identity are related to each other but they are separate fields.


>   You are determined by the structure that effects these computations.
> This is independent of the particular atoms and molecules and even a lot of
> the structure.  As Bruno puts it, it depends on the level of
> substitution.  Just because there is a level, e.g. atoms, that makes no
> difference, it doesn't follow that there is not a difference at another
> level.
>

That was not what I was questioning.  My question is more like: if a
different sperm (besides the one that led to you) had made it, what would
you expect to be experiencing right now?  Would you expect to be
experiencing nothing at all?

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-12 Thread meekerdb


On 5/12/2013 9:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:


If your mom ate something different while pregnant with you, such that you developed 
with different atoms, does that mean someone else would have been born in your place and 
you wouldn't be conscious?  Or if one unexpressed gene was different, would it be 
someone other than you looking through those eyes?  What if one gene were different, but 
it was of little consequence, or what if multiple genes were different, etc.  How much 
of the circumstances would have to change for you to never have been born?  If you admit 
that different matter or different genes would not make it such that you were never 
born, then are you not all your siblings as well?


That doesn't follow. The most common theory of why you are you is that the structure of 
your brain and body encode computations that are peculiar to you. You are determined by 
the structure that effects these computations.  This is independent of the particular 
atoms and molecules and even a lot of the structure.  As Bruno puts it, it depends on the 
level of substitution.  Just because there is a level, e.g. atoms, that makes no 
difference, it doesn't follow that there is not a difference at another level.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-12 Thread John Clark

On Sat, May 11, 2013  Jason Resch  wrote:

> Nothing can truly be proven nor disproven,
>

Then you must believe that the word "proof" should be expunged from the
English language as there would be no time when it would be appropriate to
use it. I disagree and rather like the word.

> The people you are describing are those that hold the constancy of their
> beliefs in higher regard than the truth of their beliefs.
>

Yes exactly, the "it's true for me" people, in other words religious
believers, in other words morons.

 > Meme's which hold self-preservation and constancy above all else, are
> those that will persist through time.
>

Yes just like viruses, and like viruses some memes kill their hosts as in
Islamic suicide bombers.

> I don't know that science is usually correct.
>

Then I have a advantage over you because I did know that science is usually
correct.

> Even our leading theories, QM and GR, we feel are not fully correct since
> they don't work well together.
>

And science is probably correct in thinking that both these theories work
beautifully everywhere except for 2 places, the singularity at the center
of a Black Hole and the instant of the Big Bang, and science is certainly
correct in thinking that more work is required before we understand those
things.

> Here you are lumping all religious belief together
>

All religions are stupid but some religions are stupider (and more
dangerous) than others.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-12 Thread Stephen Paul King

ISTM that this "you are everyone" aspect is the definition of that it is
like to be at the substitution level.


On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:35 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>> > On 5/11/2013 12:27 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> >
>> > I used to participate in the mailing list years ago and this was a
>> > recurring theme -- quantum suicide. There was some anecdote that some
>> > guy actually tried it but fell in love minutes before going through
>> > with it, and that stopped him. I think Russell mentions this in his
>> > book.
>> >
>> > One of the problems is that the execution mechanism must have a
>> > failure rate lower than 1 in 80 million. This is no small engineering
>> > feat when it comes to reliably killing a human -- you may end up like
>> > a non-lottery winning vegetable in some of the universes.
>> >
>> >
>> > The more general objection is that even if it works you've lowered you
>> > measure in the universe.   Whether you-now should care about all of
>> you-then
>> > is then the question.  In general you do care about you future self(s),
>> but
>> > maybe you're willing to make a trade-off if you're a high-risk gambler
>> type.
>>
>> There is also the possibility that the meta-me that gets to experience
>> all my possible 1ps also gets to experience everyone else's. In this
>> model there is a gigantic bag of 1p observer moments and all are
>> conscious. Then it becomes more rational to be nice to other people
>> than to win the lottery.
>>
>
>
> I agree with this.  Consider why you were born as you:
>
> If your mom ate something different while pregnant with you, such that you
> developed with different atoms, does that mean someone else would have been
> born in your place and you wouldn't be conscious?  Or if one unexpressed
> gene was different, would it be someone other than you looking through
> those eyes?  What if one gene were different, but it was of little
> consequence, or what if multiple genes were different, etc.  How much of
> the circumstances would have to change for you to never have been born?  If
> you admit that different matter or different genes would not make it such
> that you were never born, then are you not all your siblings as well?  And
> what of those born to other mothers?
>
> There is no physical fact that explains why you experience your
> perspective and not someone else's.  Think: If it were possible to swap
> perspectives with someone, there would be no physical difference.  So no
> physical fact accounts for why you are one particular person and not
> another.  Why should we believe it then?  Statistically speaking, it is
> incredibly unlikely that someone with the exact matter and genes as you
> have would ever be born.  This makes it overwhelmingly more likely that you
> are in fact everyone.
>
> Jason
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/K7E-Vfwj4QU/unsubscribe?hl=en
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:35 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
> > On 5/11/2013 12:27 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> >
> > I used to participate in the mailing list years ago and this was a
> > recurring theme -- quantum suicide. There was some anecdote that some
> > guy actually tried it but fell in love minutes before going through
> > with it, and that stopped him. I think Russell mentions this in his
> > book.
> >
> > One of the problems is that the execution mechanism must have a
> > failure rate lower than 1 in 80 million. This is no small engineering
> > feat when it comes to reliably killing a human -- you may end up like
> > a non-lottery winning vegetable in some of the universes.
> >
> >
> > The more general objection is that even if it works you've lowered you
> > measure in the universe.   Whether you-now should care about all of
> you-then
> > is then the question.  In general you do care about you future self(s),
> but
> > maybe you're willing to make a trade-off if you're a high-risk gambler
> type.
>
> There is also the possibility that the meta-me that gets to experience
> all my possible 1ps also gets to experience everyone else's. In this
> model there is a gigantic bag of 1p observer moments and all are
> conscious. Then it becomes more rational to be nice to other people
> than to win the lottery.
>

I agree with this.  Consider why you were born as you:

If your mom ate something different while pregnant with you, such that you
developed with different atoms, does that mean someone else would have been
born in your place and you wouldn't be conscious?  Or if one unexpressed
gene was different, would it be someone other than you looking through
those eyes?  What if one gene were different, but it was of little
consequence, or what if multiple genes were different, etc.  How much of
the circumstances would have to change for you to never have been born?  If
you admit that different matter or different genes would not make it such
that you were never born, then are you not all your siblings as well?  And
what of those born to other mothers?

There is no physical fact that explains why you experience your perspective
and not someone else's.  Think: If it were possible to swap perspectives
with someone, there would be no physical difference.  So no physical fact
accounts for why you are one particular person and not another.  Why should
we believe it then?  Statistically speaking, it is incredibly unlikely that
someone with the exact matter and genes as you have would ever be born.
This makes it overwhelmingly more likely that you are in fact everyone.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-12 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:35 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
> On 5/11/2013 12:27 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> I used to participate in the mailing list years ago and this was a
> recurring theme -- quantum suicide. There was some anecdote that some
> guy actually tried it but fell in love minutes before going through
> with it, and that stopped him. I think Russell mentions this in his
> book.
>
> One of the problems is that the execution mechanism must have a
> failure rate lower than 1 in 80 million. This is no small engineering
> feat when it comes to reliably killing a human -- you may end up like
> a non-lottery winning vegetable in some of the universes.
>
>
> The more general objection is that even if it works you've lowered you
> measure in the universe.   Whether you-now should care about all of you-then
> is then the question.  In general you do care about you future self(s), but
> maybe you're willing to make a trade-off if you're a high-risk gambler type.

There is also the possibility that the meta-me that gets to experience
all my possible 1ps also gets to experience everyone else's. In this
model there is a gigantic bag of 1p observer moments and all are
conscious. Then it becomes more rational to be nice to other people
than to win the lottery.

Telmo.

> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-11 Thread meekerdb


On 5/11/2013 12:27 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

I used to participate in the mailing list years ago and this was a
recurring theme -- quantum suicide. There was some anecdote that some
guy actually tried it but fell in love minutes before going through
with it, and that stopped him. I think Russell mentions this in his
book.

One of the problems is that the execution mechanism must have a
failure rate lower than 1 in 80 million. This is no small engineering
feat when it comes to reliably killing a human -- you may end up like
a non-lottery winning vegetable in some of the universes.


The more general objection is that even if it works you've lowered you measure in the 
universe.   Whether you-now should care about all of you-then is then the question.  In 
general you do care about you future self(s), but maybe you're willing to make a trade-off 
if you're a high-risk gambler type.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-11 Thread Jason Resch

On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:07 AM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Fri, May 10, 2013  Jason Resch  wrote:
>
> > Religion is a set of beliefs which cannot be proved.
>>
>
> Not only can strongly held religious beliefs not be proven to be correct
> they can often be proven to be incorrect,
>

Here you are using the word "prove" in a different sense than I was.
Nothing can truly be proven nor disproven, but we can adapt our world
beliefs in accordance with rationality or not.

> of course that fact doesn't make the slightest difference to the devout.
> Also making no difference to the religious
>

I don't think "religious" is the right term to use here.  The people you
are describing are those that hold the constancy of their beliefs in higher
regard than the truth of their beliefs.  This is just traditionalism, and
it is not rational.  The reason there are so many people in this world who
subscribe to such beliefs is explained by the evolution of memes.  Meme's
which hold self-preservation and constancy above all else, are those that
will persist through time.  Many systems of belief are rigid in this way,
but not all systems of belief (religions) are this way.  For instance, if
you are willing to change your world views, values, axiomatic beliefs in
response to new evidence, then you still have a belief system (a religion),
it just happens to be more mutable than others who are more stubborn and
less adaptive in their belief system.  This is not religion vs. science,
but close-mindedness vs. open-mindedness.   There have been many so called
scientists who are equally stubborn and dead set in their beliefs, which is
no different from some devout, traditionalist, or fundamentalist who
refuses to change their world view in response to new evidence.

> is the fact that religions contradict each other and worse are all riddled
> with self contradictions, except perhaps for pure Buddhism and Taoism which
> aren't really religions because they have no dogma and God plays no
> important part.
>
>
>> > science never provides 100% certainty on any idea,
>>
>
> True, I think.  Science is never certain but is usually correct,
>

I don't know that science is usually correct.  Of all scientific theories
ever proposed or at one time believed how many of them are still considered
correct as originally formulated?  Even our leading theories, QM and GR, we
feel are not fully correct since they don't work well together.  They will
no doubt be replaced by a "less wrong" theory in the future, but neither
our current theories or the new one will be correct.

> and that contrasts with religion which is always 100% certain but is
> almost never correct.
>

Here you are lumping all religious belief together with beliefs that
immutable traditions.  I think there are religions which are not immutable
traditions.

>
>
>
>>  > science can never tell us what course of action is correct.
>>
>
> But religion can and does tell us what is moral, and that's why people
> burned witches.
>

Our beliefs guide us on what is moral.  Of course there is never any
guarantee whether one's beliefs are correct or incorrect, which some
immutable traditions like to deny.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-11 Thread John Clark

On Fri, May 10, 2013  Jason Resch  wrote:

> Religion is a set of beliefs which cannot be proved.
>

Not only can strongly held religious beliefs not be proven to be correct
they can often be proven to be incorrect, of course that fact doesn't make
the slightest difference to the devout. Also making no difference to the
religious is the fact that religions contradict each other and worse are
all riddled with self contradictions, except perhaps for pure Buddhism and
Taoism which aren't really religions because they have no dogma and God
plays no important part.

> > science never provides 100% certainty on any idea,
>

True, I think.  Science is never certain but is usually correct, and that
contrasts with religion which is always 100% certain but is almost never
correct.

> > science can never tell us what course of action is correct.
>

But religion can and does tell us what is moral, and that's why people
burned witches.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-11 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 10 May 2013, at 19:18, meekerdb wrote:


On 5/10/2013 10:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 10 May 2013, at 18:09, meekerdb wrote:


On 5/10/2013 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 09 May 2013, at 18:08, meekerdb wrote:


On 5/9/2013 1:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think that requires a wave function collapse, it's  
explained by Everett's MWI also, which is a kind of non-local  
hidden variable.


Why non local? There is nothing non local in Everett's MWI.


Sure it is.  When you take the trace of the density matrix over  
the environment to get a set of orthogonal subspaces that's a  
non-local, mathematical operation.


Local is about physical reality, not mathematical operation. The  
wave describing the physical (physicists included) evolves  
deterministically and locally. Non locality is in the  
(mathematical) appearances.


In an EPR type experiment the wave-function's evolution is not  
local.  It changes over a space-like interval.


Only from the (first person plural) participators points of view,  
abstracting from the leaked information in the environment(s), a  
local, computable, phenomenon, at the correct dimensions.


??  The state exists in Hilbert space, not space-time.  I depends on  
space-time variables which are space-like separate.  So even in a  
MWI picture the state is not local and the change in state due to a  
measurement interaction doesn't propagate in space-time.


There is no change in state due to a measurement, just local contagion  
of superposition, and an observation which just inform us in which  
partition of the multiverse we are. Of course a quantum sate is not  
local, like a computation is not localized in the UD "in one place",  
but in infinity of place. But there is no physical action at a  
distance at all.







Eventually to make this precise you need to marry GR and the  
quantum, and that's not easy.


So will comp contribute to this?


Comp, if correct, has no choice in the matter, given that it reduces  
the whole of physics to intensional variants of machines' self- 
reference.


Bruno




Brent
Perhaps you are dreaming about building a non abelian anyonic
quantum computing machine through some fractional quantum Hall
effect? This is less elementary.
  --- Bruno Marchal

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-11 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 10 May 2013, at 19:03, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, May 10, 2013  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> How could a pseudo-religion, fake by definition, be superior to  
anything?

Well, I'd rather be a fake moron that a real moron, wouldn't you?

> And why should a religion be illogical?

Because if it deals with big issues as religion does and it is not  
illogical then the word for that is not "religion" but "science".

> there are no evidence that some events lack of explanation,

Not true, as I've said before most numbers have no explanation, they  
cannot be described in terms of something else. Some of the real  
numbers like PI or e or the square root of 2 do have a explanation,  
that is there is a way to generate them to any desired level of  
precision, but they are the very rare exceptions; Turing proved in  
1935 that the vast majority of the real numbers have no explanation.  
There is no explanation for the non computational numbers, they just  
are.

We were talking about physical events.

> so let us not bet on genuine randomness in nature prematurely.

I don't think you could call it prematurely, it took nearly a  
century for most physicists to be dragged into the realm of  
randomness and they kicked and screamed every each of the way, but  
nature didn't care and felt no obligation to conform to human wishes  
or intuition.

There is no evidence that in "nature" there is anything third person  
random.

Bruno

  John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-11 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:34 PM, John Clark  wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>
>>> > No they are not exactly alike. A tiny change in a cuckoo clock causes a
>>> > tiny change in the clock's performance, but a tiny change in the roulette
>>> > wheel causes a HUGE change in the wheel's performance,
>>
>>
>> > True, but chaotic systems are still explainable in terms of forces and
>> > interactions, like any other Newtonian mechanism.
>
>
> To explain how a chaotic system operates you'd have to describe the forces
> acting on it in INFINITE detail, and a explanation that requires a infinite
> (and not just astronomical) amount of verbiage isn't much of a explanation.
>
>> > Science ultimately suffers from the halting problem. We can never be
>> > sure if it's hopeless or if there is a possibility of discovery ahead.
>
>
> Yes.
>
>>
>> > If I made a bet with you on the outcome of one double-slit experiment,
>> > there would be a set of macro states where I won the bet and a set where I
>> > lost it. I'm inclined to believe I would actually experience both of these
>> > outcomes.
>
>
> About a year ago on this list I made a modest proposal, it's a low tech way
> to test the Many World's interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and as a bonus
> it'll make you rich too. First you buy one Powerball lottery ticket, the
> drawing of the winning number is on Saturday at 11pm, now make a simple
> machine that will pull the trigger on a 44 magnum revolver aimed at your
> head at exactly 11:00:01pm UNLESS yours is the winning ticket. Your
> subjective experience can only be that at 11:00:01pm despite 80 million to
> one odds stacked against you a miracle occurs and the gun does not go off
> and you're rich beyond the dreams of avarice. Of course for every universe
> you're rich in there are 80 million in which your friends watch your head
> explode, but that's a minor point, your consciousness no longer exists in
> any of those worlds so you never have to see the mess, it's their problem
> not yours.

I used to participate in the mailing list years ago and this was a
recurring theme -- quantum suicide. There was some anecdote that some
guy actually tried it but fell in love minutes before going through
with it, and that stopped him. I think Russell mentions this in his
book.

One of the problems is that the execution mechanism must have a
failure rate lower than 1 in 80 million. This is no small engineering
feat when it comes to reliably killing a human -- you may end up like
a non-lottery winning vegetable in some of the universes.

I even remember someone proposing civilisation-level quantum suicide:
if CO2 doesn't go lower than X% by a certain date, a massive nuclear
strike is automatically triggered.

> Actually I like Many Worlds and think it may very well be right, but I
> wouldn't bet my life on it.

Good.

Telmo.

>   John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?


On 5/10/2013 8:39 PM, Jason Resch wrote:


So to summarize, according to you, no choice can be scientific because 
science
doesn't provide certainty


Choices are inherently unscientific.


So you say.  I see no reason to discuss philosophy with someone who thinks they can just 
redefine the language.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:40 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 5/10/2013 2:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 2:45 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 5/10/2013 12:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 10, 2013, at 1:24 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>   On 5/10/2013 10:58 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:03 PM, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, May 10, 2013  Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>>
>>>  > How could a pseudo-religion, fake by definition, be superior to
 anything?

>>>
>>> Well, I'd rather be a fake moron that a real moron, wouldn't you?
>>>
>>>> And why should a religion be illogical?

>>>
>>> Because if it deals with big issues as religion does and it is not
>>> illogical then the word for that is not "religion" but "science".
>>>
>>>
>> Religion is a set of beliefs which cannot be proved.  Science is a means
>> by which one might arrive on such a set of beliefs.  Life requires making
>> decisions but as science never provides 100% certainty on any idea, science
>> can never tell us what course of action is correct.  For that we must fall
>> back to our beliefs and hope our decision was right.
>>
>>
>> That's a very strange formulation?  Yes, science is a means of arriving
>> at a set of propositions that cannot be proved, but so is astrology and
>> numerology and even just making stuff up.  But science is right much more
>> consistently than other methods and that's what distinguishes it - not the
>> fact that it's not certain.
>>
>>
>>  My point is that even with good methods of arriving at beliefs (such as
>> science) we never get certainty.
>>
>>
>>  Sure.  It's even true in mathematics and logic, which unlike science do
>> purport to prove things:
>>
>> http://projectwordsworth.com/the-paradox-of-the-proof/
>>
>>
>>
>  Right.
>
>
>>
>>  Yet any time we make a decision we must base that decision on some
>> belief as if it were true, which is not scientific (but religious), as it
>> depends on unprovable beliefs.
>>
>>
>>  You're creating a false equivalence between science and religion (maybe
>> so you can tell John Clark he's really religious; he likes to hear that.
>> :-) ).
>>
>
>  They are not equivalent, but there is a relationship between the two.
>  It is like Bruno says, science is the tool and religion the goal.  Or what
> Einstein said, where religion sets the goals and science helps realize them:
>
>  "Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are
> clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the
> two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may
> be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from
> science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the
> attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by
> those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and
> understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of
> religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the
> regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is,
> comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without
> that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science
> without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
>
>
> This an old rhetorical move, made most nakedly by Paul Tillich who defined
> "God" as whatever you value and "religion" as the pursuit of that value.
> So Tillich converted everyone to belief in God much more easily than Billy
> Graham every hoped.
>


Take, for instance you belief that it's better to presume something we
cannot see doesn't exist, and contrast that with my opposite belief that we
should presume it does exist (so long as we find no reason to think it
shouldn't).  Or the belief in solipsism vs. the belief that others have
feelings too, or one's belief or disbelief in an afterlife.  It seems in
principal science (as a third-person shareable endeavor) cannot progress on
these matters, and any opinion one might have on the matter is the result
of a personal (unjustifiable) set of beliefs.  We all have them.


> The trouble is that neither you nor Einstein get to redefine words - they
> are defined by commons usage.
>

" a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency
or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often
containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. "

I think my definition as a "set of beliefs" more closely matches the
above definition
much more closely than
"faith in supernatural revelation or religious dogma." -- which to me seems
purposefully constructed so you can claim to be free of any religious
beliefs.



>   It doesn't take "profound faith" to bet that the world is explicabl

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-10 Thread Stephen Paul King

Brent,

"I gave a non-circular explication of that "... based on faith in some
supernatural revelation.""

Right, that is not circular. Are you OK with infinite regress based
explanations?


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:40 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 5/10/2013 2:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 2:45 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 5/10/2013 12:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 10, 2013, at 1:24 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>   On 5/10/2013 10:58 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:03 PM, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, May 10, 2013  Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>>
>>>  > How could a pseudo-religion, fake by definition, be superior to
 anything?

>>>
>>> Well, I'd rather be a fake moron that a real moron, wouldn't you?
>>>
>>>> And why should a religion be illogical?

>>>
>>> Because if it deals with big issues as religion does and it is not
>>> illogical then the word for that is not "religion" but "science".
>>>
>>>
>> Religion is a set of beliefs which cannot be proved.  Science is a means
>> by which one might arrive on such a set of beliefs.  Life requires making
>> decisions but as science never provides 100% certainty on any idea, science
>> can never tell us what course of action is correct.  For that we must fall
>> back to our beliefs and hope our decision was right.
>>
>>
>> That's a very strange formulation?  Yes, science is a means of arriving
>> at a set of propositions that cannot be proved, but so is astrology and
>> numerology and even just making stuff up.  But science is right much more
>> consistently than other methods and that's what distinguishes it - not the
>> fact that it's not certain.
>>
>>
>>  My point is that even with good methods of arriving at beliefs (such as
>> science) we never get certainty.
>>
>>
>>  Sure.  It's even true in mathematics and logic, which unlike science do
>> purport to prove things:
>>
>> http://projectwordsworth.com/the-paradox-of-the-proof/
>>
>>
>>
>  Right.
>
>
>>
>>  Yet any time we make a decision we must base that decision on some
>> belief as if it were true, which is not scientific (but religious), as it
>> depends on unprovable beliefs.
>>
>>
>>  You're creating a false equivalence between science and religion (maybe
>> so you can tell John Clark he's really religious; he likes to hear that.
>> :-) ).
>>
>
>  They are not equivalent, but there is a relationship between the two.
>  It is like Bruno says, science is the tool and religion the goal.  Or what
> Einstein said, where religion sets the goals and science helps realize them:
>
>  "Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are
> clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the
> two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may
> be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from
> science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the
> attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by
> those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and
> understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of
> religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the
> regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is,
> comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without
> that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science
> without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
>
>
> This an old rhetorical move, made most nakedly by Paul Tillich who defined
> "God" as whatever you value and "religion" as the pursuit of that value.
> So Tillich converted everyone to belief in God much more easily than Billy
> Graham every hoped.  The trouble is that neither you nor Einstein get to
> redefine words - they are defined by commons usage.  It doesn't take
> "profound faith" to bet that the world is explicable.  It only takes the
> observation that a lot has been well explained (by science, not religion)
> and the curiosity to want to explain more.
>
>
>
>
>>  This wrong in two respects.  First, it is not necessary to assume some
>> proposition is true in order to act.  If I bet on a poker hand I'm betting
>> it's better than my opponents hand - but I'm not assuming or believing or
>> depending on that that. I know I may lose.
>>
>
>  You decision to bet is based on the belief that maximizing winnings (at
> the expense of others) is good (and that the move has an expected value
> greater than zero).
>
>
> That I want to win is not a belief about the world, it's a personal value.
> Something I can perceive directly by introspection.
>
>
>   Someone relying only on science could never be certain playing poker
> was the correct course of action to make, for that you had to rely on some
> (possibly wrong) belief that it is good.
>
>
> Sure every decision must be informed by some values, factual pro

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On 5/10/2013 2:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 2:45 PM, meekerdb > wrote:

On 5/10/2013 12:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On May 10, 2013, at 1:24 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 5/10/2013 10:58 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:03 PM, John Clark mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Fri, May 10, 2013 Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:

> How could a pseudo-religion, fake by definition, be superior to
anything?

Well, I'd rather be a fake moron that a real moron, wouldn't you?

> And why should a religion be illogical?

Because if it deals with big issues as religion does and it is not
illogical
then the word for that is not "religion" but "science".

Religion is a set of beliefs which cannot be proved. Science is a means by
which
one might arrive on such a set of beliefs. Life requires making decisions
but as
science never provides 100% certainty on any idea, science can never tell
us what
course of action is correct. For that we must fall back to our beliefs and
hope
our decision was right.

That's a very strange formulation? Yes, science is a means of arriving at
a set
of propositions that cannot be proved, but so is astrology and numerology
and even
just making stuff up. But science is right much more consistently than
other
methods and that's what distinguishes it - not the fact that it's not
certain.

My point is that even with good methods of arriving at beliefs (such as
science) we
never get certainty.

Sure. It's even true in mathematics and logic, which unlike science do
purport to
prove things:

http://projectwordsworth.com/the-paradox-of-the-proof/

Right.

Yet any time we make a decision we must base that decision on some belief
as if it
were true, which is not scientific (but religious), as it depends on
unprovable
beliefs.

You're creating a false equivalence between science and religion (maybe so
you can
tell John Clark he's really religious; he likes to hear that. :-) ).

They are not equivalent, but there is a relationship between the two. It is like Bruno
says, science is the tool and religion the goal. Or what Einstein said, where religion
sets the goals and science helps realize them:

"Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked
off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal
relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal,
it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will
contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created
by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.
This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also
belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of
existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a
genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an
image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

This an old rhetorical move, made most nakedly by Paul Tillich who defined "God" as
whatever you value and "religion" as the pursuit of that value. So Tillich converted
everyone to belief in God much more easily than Billy Graham every hoped. The trouble is
that neither you nor Einstein get to redefine words - they are defined by commons usage.
It doesn't take "profound faith" to bet that the world is explicable. It only takes the
observation that a lot has been well explained (by science, not religion) and the
curiosity to want to explain more.

This wrong in two respects. First, it is not necessary to assume some
proposition
is true in order to act. If I bet on a poker hand I'm betting it's better
than my
opponents hand - but I'm not assuming or believing or depending on that
that. I know
I may lose.

You decision to bet is based on the belief that maximizing winnings (at the expense of
others) is good (and that the move has an expected value greater than zero).

That I want to win is not a belief about the world, it's a personal value. Something I can
perceive directly by introspection.

Someone relying only on science could never be certain playing poker was the correct
course of action to make, for that you had to rely on some (possibly wrong) belief that
it is good.

Sure every decision must be informed by some values, factual propositions are not enough
even if they were certain.

Second, basing a decision on some belief doesn't make it either religious
or
scientific. What makes it scientific is that it is supported by the
prepond

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 2:45 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 5/10/2013 12:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On May 10, 2013, at 1:24 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>   On 5/10/2013 10:58 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:03 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 10, 2013  Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>  > How could a pseudo-religion, fake by definition, be superior to
>>> anything?
>>>
>>
>> Well, I'd rather be a fake moron that a real moron, wouldn't you?
>>
>>> And why should a religion be illogical?
>>>
>>
>> Because if it deals with big issues as religion does and it is not
>> illogical then the word for that is not "religion" but "science".
>>
>>
> Religion is a set of beliefs which cannot be proved.  Science is a means
> by which one might arrive on such a set of beliefs.  Life requires making
> decisions but as science never provides 100% certainty on any idea, science
> can never tell us what course of action is correct.  For that we must fall
> back to our beliefs and hope our decision was right.
>
>
> That's a very strange formulation?  Yes, science is a means of arriving at
> a set of propositions that cannot be proved, but so is astrology and
> numerology and even just making stuff up.  But science is right much more
> consistently than other methods and that's what distinguishes it - not the
> fact that it's not certain.
>
>
>  My point is that even with good methods of arriving at beliefs (such as
> science) we never get certainty.
>
>
> Sure.  It's even true in mathematics and logic, which unlike science do
> purport to prove things:
>
> http://projectwordsworth.com/the-paradox-of-the-proof/
>
>
>
Right.

>
>  Yet any time we make a decision we must base that decision on some
> belief as if it were true, which is not scientific (but religious), as it
> depends on unprovable beliefs.
>
>
> You're creating a false equivalence between science and religion (maybe so
> you can tell John Clark he's really religious; he likes to hear that. :-)
> ).
>

They are not equivalent, but there is a relationship between the two.  It
is like Bruno says, science is the tool and religion the goal.  Or what
Einstein said, where religion sets the goals and science helps realize them:

"Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are
clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the
two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may
be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from
science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the
attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by
those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and
understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of
religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the
regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is,
comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without
that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science
without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

> This wrong in two respects.  First, it is not necessary to assume some
> proposition is true in order to act.  If I bet on a poker hand I'm betting
> it's better than my opponents hand - but I'm not assuming or believing or
> depending on that that. I know I may lose.
>

You decision to bet is based on the belief that maximizing winnings (at the
expense of others) is good (and that the move has an expected value greater
than zero).  Someone relying only on science could never be certain playing
poker was the correct course of action to make, for that you had to rely on
some (possibly wrong) belief that it is good.

>   Second, basing a decision on some belief doesn't make it either
> religious or scientific.  What makes it scientific is that it is supported
> by the preponderance of the evidence.  What makes it religious is that it
> is based on the dogma of some religion, i.e. is based on faith in some
> supernatural revelation.
>

Here you are defining religion circularly as the dogma of some religion.  I
prefer my definition of religion as a set of beliefs, as it is
non-circular, it can be applied to non-dogmatic, and non-revealed
religions, and it follows more closely with the definitions of Einstein and
Bruno.

Of course, you and John Clark may not like this definition, because it
shows how every rational thinker operates according to some belief and
value system, which cannot be justified by science.

>
>
>
>  E.g., if a doctor asks you if you want a digital brain prosthesis, you
> must answer yes or no.  Science may lead you to believe CTM is true and the
> substitution level us right, but you cannot know.  Making the decision
> involves a leap of faith.
>
>
> No necessarily.  I can bet CTM is more likely true than an alternative,
> without leaping to faith in either one.  If I said "yes" to the

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On 5/10/2013 12:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On May 10, 2013, at 1:24 PM, meekerdb > wrote:

On 5/10/2013 10:58 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:03 PM, John Clark > wrote:

On Fri, May 10, 2013 Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
wrote:

> How could a pseudo-religion, fake by definition, be superior to
anything?

Well, I'd rather be a fake moron that a real moron, wouldn't you?

> And why should a religion be illogical?

Because if it deals with big issues as religion does and it is not
illogical then
the word for that is not "religion" but "science".

Religion is a set of beliefs which cannot be proved. Science is a means by which one
might arrive on such a set of beliefs. Life requires making decisions but as science
never provides 100% certainty on any idea, science can never tell us what course of
action is correct. For that we must fall back to our beliefs and hope our decision
was right.

That's a very strange formulation? Yes, science is a means of arriving at a set of
propositions that cannot be proved, but so is astrology and numerology and even just
making stuff up. But science is right much more consistently than other methods and
that's what distinguishes it - not the fact that it's not certain.

My point is that even with good methods of arriving at beliefs (such as science) we
never get certainty.

Sure. It's even true in mathematics and logic, which unlike science do purport to prove
things:

http://projectwordsworth.com/the-paradox-of-the-proof/

Yet any time we make a decision we must base that decision on some belief as if it were
true, which is not scientific (but religious), as it depends on unprovable beliefs.

You're creating a false equivalence between science and religion (maybe so you can tell
John Clark he's really religious; he likes to hear that. :-) ). This wrong in two
respects. First, it is not necessary to assume some proposition is true in order to act.
If I bet on a poker hand I'm betting it's better than my opponents hand - but I'm not
assuming or believing or depending on that that. I know I may lose. Second, basing a
decision on some belief doesn't make it either religious or scientific. What makes it
scientific is that it is supported by the preponderance of the evidence. What makes it
religious is that it is based on the dogma of some religion, i.e. is based on faith in
some supernatural revelation.

E.g., if a doctor asks you if you want a digital brain prosthesis, you must answer yes
or no. Science may lead you to believe CTM is true and the substitution level us right,
but you cannot know. Making the decision involves a leap of faith.

No necessarily. I can bet CTM is more likely true than an alternative, without leaping to
faith in either one. If I said "yes" to the doctor I wouldn't cancel my life insurance.

I'm not sure what you mean by religion provides beliefs which cannot be proved.

I did not say that it provides them. I said a religion is those set of beliefs. How
you got them is another matter.

Of course they are not part of an axiomatic system, so they cannot be proved or
disproved in that sense. But they can certainly tested in the ordinary sense of
"preponderance of the evidence". For example many religions include a belief that
pious and sincere prayers will be answered. Double blind tests of this belief show it
is not true. So maybe the reason they can't be proved is that they are false.

Another reason is that nothing can be proved.

I don't think believing is just an act of will that can be applied to any proposition
though, at least that's not what I'd call believing. You seem to implicitly assume
that we need certainty in order to act - which is obviously not the case.

No, we never have certainty, so certainty is not required to act. But all decisions we
make (consciously or not) are based on beliefs, which for the sake of the decision, we
assume/hope to be true.

No, we don't assume they are true. In fact we make many decisions subconsciously; so to
say we believe some proposition is true in order to act is stretching the meaning of
"believe".

Brent
It ain't so much what you don't know that gets you into trouble, as what you know that
ain't so.

--- Josh Billings

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On 5/10/2013 10:34 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 Telmo Menezes > wrote:

> No they are not exactly alike. A tiny change in a cuckoo clock causes 
a tiny
change in the clock's performance, but a tiny change in the roulette 
wheel
causes a HUGE change in the wheel's performance,

> True, but chaotic systems are still explainable in terms of forces and
interactions, like any other Newtonian mechanism.

To explain how a chaotic system operates you'd have to describe the forces acting on it 
in INFINITE detail, and a explanation that requires a infinite (and not just 
astronomical) amount of verbiage isn't much of a explanation.

> Science ultimately suffers from the halting problem. We can never be sure 
if it's
hopeless or if there is a possibility of discovery ahead.

Yes.

> If I made a bet with you on the outcome of one double-slit experiment, 
there would
be a set of macro states where I won the bet and a set where I lost it. I'm 
inclined
to believe I would actually experience both of these outcomes.

About a year ago on this list I made a modest proposal, it's a low tech way to test the 
Many World's interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and as a bonus it'll make you rich too. 
First you buy one Powerball lottery ticket, the drawing of the winning number is on 
Saturday at 11pm, now make a simple machine that will pull the trigger on a 44 magnum 
revolver aimed at your head at exactly 11:00:01pm UNLESS yours is the winning ticket. 
Your subjective experience can only be that at 11:00:01pm despite 80 million to one odds 
stacked against you a miracle occurs and the gun does not go off and you're rich beyond 
the dreams of avarice. Of course for every universe you're rich in there are 80 million 
in which your friends watch your head explode, but that's a minor point, your 
consciousness no longer exists in any of those worlds so you never have to see the mess, 
it's their problem not yours.

Have you read "Schrodinger's Rabbits" by Colin Bruce?

Brent

Actually I like Many Worlds and think it may very well be right, but I wouldn't bet my 
life on it.

  John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything 
List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2013.0.3336 / Virus Database: 3162/6313 - Release Date: 05/10/13

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On May 10, 2013, at 1:24 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

On 5/10/2013 10:58 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:03 PM, John Clark > wrote:

On Fri, May 10, 2013  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> How could a pseudo-religion, fake by definition, be superior to  
anything?

Well, I'd rather be a fake moron that a real moron, wouldn't you?

> And why should a religion be   illogical?

Because if it deals with big issues as religion does and it is not  
illogical then the word for that is not "religion" but "science".

Religion is a set of beliefs which cannot be proved.  Science is a  
means by which one might arrive on such a set of beliefs.  Life  
requires making decisions but as science never provides 100%  
certainty on any idea, science can never tell us what course of  
action is correct.  For that we must fall back to our beliefs and  
hope our decision was right.

That's a very strange formulation?  Yes, science is a means of  
arriving at a set of propositions that cannot be proved, but so is  
astrology and numerology and even just making stuff up.  But science  
is right much more consistently than other methods and that's what  
distinguishes it - not the fact that it's not certain.

My point is that even with good methods of arriving at beliefs (such  
as science) we never get certainty.

Yet any time we make a decision we must base that decision on some  
belief as if it were true, which is not scientific (but religious), as  
it depends on unprovable beliefs.

E.g., if a doctor asks you if you want a digital brain prosthesis, you  
must answer yes or no.  Science may lead you to believe CTM is true  
and the substitution level us right, but you cannot know.  Making the  
decision involves a leap of faith.

I'm not sure what you mean by religion provides beliefs which cannot  
be proved.

I did not say that it provides them.  I said a religion is those set  
of beliefs.  How you got them is another matter.

Of course they are not part of an axiomatic system, so they cannot  
be proved or disproved in that sense.   But they can certainly  
tested in the ordinary sense of "preponderance of the evidence".   
For example many religions include a belief that pious and sincere  
prayers will be answered.  Double blind tests of this belief  
show it is not true.  So maybe the reason they can't be proved is  
that they are false.

Another reason is that nothing can be proved.

I don't think believing is just an act of will that can be applied  
to any proposition though, at least that's not what I'd call  
believing.  You seem to implicitly assume that we need certainty in  
order to act - which is obviously not the case.

No, we never have certainty, so certainty is not required to act.  But  
all decisions we make (consciously or not) are based on beliefs, which  
for the sake of the decision, we assume/hope to be true.

Jason

Brent
"All those canes, braces and crutches, and not a single glass  
eye, wooden leg, or toupee!"
   ---  Anatole France, on seeing the objects cast off by visitors  
to Lourdes.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On 5/10/2013 10:58 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:03 PM, John Clark > wrote:

On Fri, May 10, 2013 Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
wrote:

> How could a pseudo-religion, fake by definition, be superior to
anything?

Well, I'd rather be a fake moron that a real moron, wouldn't you?

> And why should a religion be illogical?

Because if it deals with big issues as religion does and it is not
illogical then
the word for that is not "religion" but "science".

Religion is a set of beliefs which cannot be proved. Science is a means by which one
might arrive on such a set of beliefs. Life requires making decisions but as science
never provides 100% certainty on any idea, science can never tell us what course of
action is correct. For that we must fall back to our beliefs and hope our decision was
right.

That's a very strange formulation? Yes, science is a means of arriving at a set of
propositions that cannot be proved, but so is astrology and numerology and even just
making stuff up. But science is right much more consistently than other methods and
that's what distinguishes it - not the fact that it's not certain.

I'm not sure what you mean by religion provides beliefs which cannot be proved. Of course
they are not part of an axiomatic system, so they cannot be proved or disproved in that
sense. But they can certainly tested in the ordinary sense of "preponderance of the
evidence". For example many religions include a belief that pious and sincere prayers
will be answered. Double blind tests of this belief show it is not true. So maybe the
reason they can't be proved is that they are false.

I don't think believing is just an act of will that can be applied to any proposition
though, at least that's not what I'd call believing. You seem to implicitly assume that
we need certainty in order to act - which is obviously not the case.

Brent
"All those canes, braces and crutches, and not a single glass eye, wooden leg, or
toupee!"
--- Anatole France, on seeing the objects cast off by visitors to Lourdes.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:03 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Fri, May 10, 2013  Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> > How could a pseudo-religion, fake by definition, be superior to
>> anything?
>>
>
> Well, I'd rather be a fake moron that a real moron, wouldn't you?
>
> > And why should a religion be illogical?
>>
>
> Because if it deals with big issues as religion does and it is not
> illogical then the word for that is not "religion" but "science".
>
>
Religion is a set of beliefs which cannot be proved.  Science is a means by
which one might arrive on such a set of beliefs.  Life requires making
decisions but as science never provides 100% certainty on any idea, science
can never tell us what course of action is correct.  For that we must fall
back to our beliefs and hope our decision was right.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-10 Thread John Clark

On Fri, May 10, 2013 Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> No they are not exactly alike. A tiny change in a cuckoo clock causes a
>> tiny change in the clock's performance, but a tiny change in the roulette
>> wheel causes a HUGE change in the wheel's performance,
>>
>
> > True, but chaotic systems are still explainable in terms of forces and
> interactions, like any other Newtonian mechanism.

To explain how a chaotic system operates you'd have to describe the forces
acting on it in INFINITE detail, and a explanation that requires a infinite
(and not just astronomical) amount of verbiage isn't much of a
explanation.

> Science ultimately suffers from the halting problem. We can never be sure
> if it's hopeless or if there is a possibility of discovery ahead.
>

Yes.

>  > If I made a bet with you on the outcome of one double-slit experiment,
> there would be a set of macro states where I won the bet and a set where I
> lost it. I'm inclined to believe I would actually experience both of these
> outcomes.
>

About a year ago on this list I made a modest proposal, it's a low tech way
to test the Many World's interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and as a bonus
it'll make you rich too. First you buy one Powerball lottery ticket, the
drawing of the winning number is on Saturday at 11pm, now make a simple
machine that will pull the trigger on a 44 magnum revolver aimed at your
head at exactly 11:00:01pm UNLESS yours is the winning ticket. Your
subjective experience can only be that at 11:00:01pm despite 80 million to
one odds stacked against you a miracle occurs and the gun does not go off
and you're rich beyond the dreams of avarice. Of course for every universe
you're rich in there are 80 million in which your friends watch your head
explode, but that's a minor point, your consciousness no longer exists in
any of those worlds so you never have to see the mess, it's their problem
not yours.

Actually I like Many Worlds and think it may very well be right, but I
wouldn't bet my life on it.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-10 Thread Stephen Paul King

For more on Kevin Knuth's work please see http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4172


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Stephen Paul King <
kingstephenp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Kevin Knuth has shown how to derive space-time structure and lorentz
> invariance from ordered lattices of observers. I suspect that the UD can
> be considered to 'run' on chains of observer events per Knuth picture. This
> gives us a nice toy model of how space-time is emergent.
>
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:18 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 5/10/2013 10:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>>  On 10 May 2013, at 18:09, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>  On 5/10/2013 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>>  On 09 May 2013, at 18:08, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>  On 5/9/2013 1:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>  I don't think that requires a wave function collapse, it's explained by
>> Everett's MWI also, which is a kind of non-local hidden variable.
>>
>>
>>  Why non local? There is nothing non local in Everett's MWI.
>>
>>
>> Sure it is.  When you take the trace of the density matrix over the
>> environment to get a set of orthogonal subspaces that's a non-local,
>> mathematical operation.
>>
>>
>>  Local is about physical reality, not mathematical operation. The wave
>> describing the physical (physicists included) evolves deterministically and
>> locally. Non locality is in the (mathematical) appearances.
>>
>>
>> In an EPR type experiment the wave-function's evolution is not local.  It
>> changes over a space-like interval.
>>
>>
>>  Only from the (first person plural) participators points of view,
>> abstracting from the leaked information in the environment(s), a local,
>> computable, phenomenon, at the correct dimensions.
>>
>>
>> ??  The state exists in Hilbert space, not space-time.  I depends on
>> space-time variables which are space-like separate.  So even in a MWI
>> picture the state is not local and the change in state due to a measurement
>> interaction doesn't propagate in space-time.
>>
>>
>>  Eventually to make this precise you need to marry GR and the quantum,
>> and that's not easy.
>>
>>
>> So will comp contribute to this?
>>
>> Brent
>> Perhaps you are dreaming about building a non abelian anyonic
>> quantum computing machine through some fractional quantum Hall
>> effect? This is less elementary.
>>   --- Bruno Marchal
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/K7E-Vfwj4QU/unsubscribe?hl=en
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-10 Thread Stephen Paul King

Kevin Knuth has shown how to derive space-time structure and lorentz
invariance from ordered lattices of observers. I suspect that the UD can
be considered to 'run' on chains of observer events per Knuth picture. This
gives us a nice toy model of how space-time is emergent.


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:18 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 5/10/2013 10:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>  On 10 May 2013, at 18:09, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 5/10/2013 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>  On 09 May 2013, at 18:08, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 5/9/2013 1:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>  I don't think that requires a wave function collapse, it's explained by
> Everett's MWI also, which is a kind of non-local hidden variable.
>
>
>  Why non local? There is nothing non local in Everett's MWI.
>
>
> Sure it is.  When you take the trace of the density matrix over the
> environment to get a set of orthogonal subspaces that's a non-local,
> mathematical operation.
>
>
>  Local is about physical reality, not mathematical operation. The wave
> describing the physical (physicists included) evolves deterministically and
> locally. Non locality is in the (mathematical) appearances.
>
>
> In an EPR type experiment the wave-function's evolution is not local.  It
> changes over a space-like interval.
>
>
>  Only from the (first person plural) participators points of view,
> abstracting from the leaked information in the environment(s), a local,
> computable, phenomenon, at the correct dimensions.
>
>
> ??  The state exists in Hilbert space, not space-time.  I depends on
> space-time variables which are space-like separate.  So even in a MWI
> picture the state is not local and the change in state due to a measurement
> interaction doesn't propagate in space-time.
>
>
>  Eventually to make this precise you need to marry GR and the quantum,
> and that's not easy.
>
>
> So will comp contribute to this?
>
> Brent
> Perhaps you are dreaming about building a non abelian anyonic
> quantum computing machine through some fractional quantum Hall
> effect? This is less elementary.
>   --- Bruno Marchal
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/K7E-Vfwj4QU/unsubscribe?hl=en
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?


On 5/10/2013 10:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 10 May 2013, at 18:09, meekerdb wrote:


On 5/10/2013 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 09 May 2013, at 18:08, meekerdb wrote:


On 5/9/2013 1:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think that requires a wave function collapse, it's explained by Everett's 
MWI also, which is a kind of non-local hidden variable.


Why non local? There is nothing non local in Everett's MWI.


Sure it is.  When you take the trace of the density matrix over the environment to 
get a set of orthogonal subspaces that's a non-local, mathematical operation.


Local is about physical reality, not mathematical operation. The wave describing the 
physical (physicists included) evolves deterministically and locally. Non locality is 
in the (mathematical) appearances.


In an EPR type experiment the wave-function's evolution is not local.  It changes over 
a space-like interval.


Only from the (first person plural) participators points of view, abstracting from the 
leaked information in the environment(s), a local, computable, phenomenon, at the 
correct dimensions.


??  The state exists in Hilbert space, not space-time.  I depends on space-time variables 
which are space-like separate.  So even in a MWI picture the state is not local and the 
change in state due to a measurement interaction doesn't propagate in space-time.



Eventually to make this precise you need to marry GR and the quantum, and 
that's not easy.


So will comp contribute to this?

Brent
Perhaps you are dreaming about building a non abelian anyonic
quantum computing machine through some fractional quantum Hall
effect? This is less elementary.
  --- Bruno Marchal

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?



On 10 May 2013, at 18:12, meekerdb wrote:


On 5/10/2013 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Indeed. Even more so when you see that the collapse is really an  
axiom saying that the theory (QM) does not apply to observation.  
The old QM is really like "QM + QM is false".
Then there has been that myth that "observation perturbs", making  
the collapse looking very much like a physical normal thing to  
happen, but Einstein made the remark that if that was the case, the  
observation can no more be covariant, and Bohr replied simply "OK,  
that collapse is not a physical process", but then what is it?


An epistemological one?


Exactly. And with comp, this leads to self-reference relatively to  
many universal numbers, in many different senses.

A complex calculus, no doubt.

Bruno






Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?



On 10 May 2013, at 18:11, meekerdb wrote:


On 5/10/2013 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

You beg the question. Nothing is irreversible.


On the contrary it is you who are begging the question.  You are  
claiming that measurements are reversible because your theory says  
they are reversible, even though in practice they are not, and  
this shows your theory is right.


To be sure, this is an open problem in comp, but the material  
hypostases suggest that the core physics will be symmetrical, but  
we can't say much more. But the empirical evidences is that  
everything is reversible in nature, even falling in a black hole.


Our best theory is that everything is CPT invariant, not T invariant.


OK.

Bruno




Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?



On 10 May 2013, at 18:09, meekerdb wrote:


On 5/10/2013 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 09 May 2013, at 18:08, meekerdb wrote:


On 5/9/2013 1:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think that requires a wave function collapse, it's  
explained by Everett's MWI also, which is a kind of non-local  
hidden variable.


Why non local? There is nothing non local in Everett's MWI.


Sure it is.  When you take the trace of the density matrix over  
the environment to get a set of orthogonal subspaces that's a non- 
local, mathematical operation.


Local is about physical reality, not mathematical operation. The  
wave describing the physical (physicists included) evolves  
deterministically and locally. Non locality is in the  
(mathematical) appearances.


In an EPR type experiment the wave-function's evolution is not  
local.  It changes over a space-like interval.


Only from the (first person plural) participators points of view,  
abstracting from the leaked information in the environment(s), a  
local, computable, phenomenon, at the correct dimensions. Eventually  
to make this precise you need to marry GR and the quantum, and that's  
not easy.


Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-10 Thread John Clark

On Fri, May 10, 2013  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> How could a pseudo-religion, fake by definition, be superior to anything?
>

Well, I'd rather be a fake moron that a real moron, wouldn't you?

> And why should a religion be illogical?
>

Because if it deals with big issues as religion does and it is not
illogical then the word for that is not "religion" but "science".

> there are no evidence that some events lack of explanation,
>

Not true, as I've said before most numbers have no explanation, they cannot
be described in terms of something else. Some of the real numbers like PI
or e or the square root of 2 do have a explanation, that is there is a way
to generate them to any desired level of precision, but they are the very
rare exceptions; Turing proved in 1935 that the vast majority of the real
numbers have no explanation. There is no explanation for the non
computational numbers, they just are.

> so let us not bet on genuine randomness in nature prematurely.
>

I don't think you could call it prematurely, it took nearly a century for
most physicists to be dragged into the realm of randomness and they kicked
and screamed every each of the way, but nature didn't care and felt no
obligation to conform to human wishes or intuition.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-10 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 6:20 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
> On 5/10/2013 2:39 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> No they are not exactly alike. A tiny change in a cuckoo clock causes a tiny
>> change in the clock's performance, but a tiny change in the roulette wheel
>> causes a HUGE change in the wheel's performance,
>
> True, but chaotic systems are still explainable in terms of forces and
> interactions, like any other Newtonian mechanism. There is no
> fundamental randomness needed to explain why you can't predict the
> outcome.
>
>
> But there aren't any Newtonian mechanisms.  A roulette wheel is a quantum
> mechanical device just like any other, except it's sensitivity means that
> microscopic quantum randomness can be amplified to different macroscopic
> results.

Sure, but I was arguing about true randomness being observable in the
macro world, my point being that only very recently have human beings
been confronted with direct observation of what appear to be truly
random events.

Telmo.

> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On 5/10/2013 2:39 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

No they are not exactly alike. A tiny change in a cuckoo clock causes a tiny
>change in the clock's performance, but a tiny change in the roulette wheel
>causes a HUGE change in the wheel's performance,

True, but chaotic systems are still explainable in terms of forces and
interactions, like any other Newtonian mechanism. There is no
fundamental randomness needed to explain why you can't predict the
outcome.

But there aren't any Newtonian mechanisms.  A roulette wheel is a quantum mechanical 
device just like any other, except it's sensitivity means that microscopic quantum 
randomness can be amplified to different macroscopic results.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?


On 5/10/2013 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Indeed. Even more so when you see that the collapse is really an axiom saying that the 
theory (QM) does not apply to observation. The old QM is really like "QM + QM is false".
Then there has been that myth that "observation perturbs", making the collapse looking 
very much like a physical normal thing to happen, but Einstein made the remark that if 
that was the case, the observation can no more be covariant, and Bohr replied simply 
"OK, that collapse is not a physical process", but then what is it?


An epistemological one?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?


On 5/10/2013 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

You beg the question. Nothing is irreversible.


On the contrary it is you who are begging the question.  You are claiming that 
measurements are reversible because your theory says they are reversible, even though 
in practice they are not, and this shows your theory is right.


To be sure, this is an open problem in comp, but the material hypostases suggest that 
the core physics will be symmetrical, but we can't say much more. But the empirical 
evidences is that everything is reversible in nature, even falling in a black hole.


Our best theory is that everything is CPT invariant, not T invariant.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?


On 5/10/2013 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 09 May 2013, at 18:08, meekerdb wrote:


On 5/9/2013 1:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think that requires a wave function collapse, it's explained by Everett's MWI 
also, which is a kind of non-local hidden variable.


Why non local? There is nothing non local in Everett's MWI.


Sure it is. When you take the trace of the density matrix over the environment to get a 
set of orthogonal subspaces that's a non-local, mathematical operation.


Local is about physical reality, not mathematical operation. The wave describing the 
physical (physicists included) evolves deterministically and locally. Non locality is in 
the (mathematical) appearances.


In an EPR type experiment the wave-function's evolution is not local.  It changes over a 
space-like interval.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-10 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 7:39 PM, John Clark  wrote:
> On Thu, May 9, 2013  Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>
>> > Roulette wheels are not random, they can be modeled as Newtonian
>> > mechanisms, exactly like cuckoo clocks.
>
>
> No they are not exactly alike. A tiny change in a cuckoo clock causes a tiny
> change in the clock's performance, but a tiny change in the roulette wheel
> causes a HUGE change in the wheel's performance,

True, but chaotic systems are still explainable in terms of forces and
interactions, like any other Newtonian mechanism. There is no
fundamental randomness needed to explain why you can't predict the
outcome.

> and conceivably the change
> might be so small that we're talking about a quantum event.

Could be, but a roulette will still work as a pseudo-random number
generator even if that's not the case.

> And if you don't
> like roulette then a electronic circuit that detects shot noise or a Geiger
> counter.

Ok.

>>
>> > You can accept that true randomness is fundamental, and thus, not
>> > explainable
>
>
> I can accept that it is conceivable. I do not think that nature is obligated
> to arrange things in such a way that human beings can always understand
> them.

Agreed, but Science ultimately suffers from the halting problem. We
can never be sure if it's hopeless or if there is a possibility of
discovery ahead.

>> > but the MWI and Bruno's FPI provide a compelling contrary hypothesis.
>
>
> I like the MWI because it doesn't have to explain what a observer or a
> observation is not because it gets rid of randomness.  Personally I don't
> see much difference between saying something happened for no cause and
> saying something happened for a cause that can't ever be detected even in
> theory.

I think the MWI suggests something a bit simpler than that: there is
no cause AND no randomness because everything happened. My personal
(although, I'm sure, not original) take on it is that the idea of
minds being in a superposition of states is consistent with
observation. If I made a bet with you on the outcome of one
double-slit experiment, there would be a set of macro states where I
won the bet and a set where I lost it. I'm inclined to believe I would
actually experience both of these outcomes. Each outcome would appear
to me as a self-consistent storyline, but that would be just an
illusion. This is a hard to swallow idea by the mainstream because it
sounds ridiculous / a bit too sci-fi-ish, but it requires less
assumptions than the alternatives, so it's the best choice so far
according to Occam's razor.

> And to tell you the truth I can't keep up with Bruno's homemade
> acronyms and terms and have quite forgotten what "FPI" even stands for.

Are you sure it's homemade? Maybe he was at the office when he first
thought of it.

On a more serious note, it would be great to have an everything list
wiki for reference. We could have a gigantic section just for monads.

> And speaking of profound mysteries, why isn't acronym a acronym? Hey wait a
> minute it is!  Arranged Chronological Reassignment Of Names You Manipulate;
> acronym for short.

You might like this one too:
http://xkcd.com/917/

Telmo.

>   John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On 09 May 2013, at 21:29, John Mikes wrote:

Bruno I stand corrected. You wrote:

"Randomness exists in math. Indeed the vast majority of numbers  
written in any base is random (incompressible). But there are no  
evidence at all of random 3p phenomenon in nature, and to bet on  
them seems like abandoning research."

I accept math-randomness in form of: TAKE ANY NUMBER.

OK, nice.

Here is my favorite random sequence of digits:

...

And I am not joking! It is just the extremely good (or bad) luck  
sequence. Of course that one is compressible, unlike most possible  
sequences. But you are right and "any" is a form of randomness, somehow.

Then again I consider 'math' a product of the human mind.

I can't help myself to think you might perhaps confuse 'human math'  
with 'math'.

Anyway, with comp I need to *assume* elementary arithmetic, if only to  
define what is a computation, and then I define or search to recover  
the human mind in that setting.
Assuming the human mind itself would be anthropomorphic, and would  
assume what I want to explain to myself and perhaps others.

Bruno

John M

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

On 08 May 2013, at 17:35, meekerdb wrote:

On 5/8/2013 1:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 07 May 2013, at 20:55, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, May 6, 2013  John Mikes  wrote:

> there is no random decay or anything else

There is no way you can deduce that from pure reason and the  
experimental evidence strongly indicates that  you are wrong  
about that.

> only things that happen without our - so far - accessed  
explanation.

And thanks to experiments involving Bell's inequality we know for  
a fact that if apparently random things happen for a reason they  
can't be local reasons; for example the reason the coin came up  
heads right now is because a billion years in the FUTURE a  
butterfly like creature on a planet in the Andromeda Galaxy  
flapped it's wings twice instead of 3 times.

You assume the collapse of the wave.

I don't think that requires a wave function collapse, it's  
explained by Everett's MWI also, which is a kind of non-local  
hidden variable.

Why non local? There is nothing non local in Everett's MWI.

There are experimental evidences against it, and there are no  
experimental evidence of any randomness other than some FPI, on  
the branch of a universal wave, or, as we need with comp, on  
arithmetic.

To believe in events without cause or reason is ... pseudo-religion.

No it's just the other sect; opposite the one that believes there  
can be no randomness.

Randomness exists in math. Indeed the vast majority of numbers  
written in any base is random (incompressible). But there are no  
evidence at all of random 3p phenomenon in nature, and to bet on  
them seems like abandoning research.

It is a belief in something without any evidences, to introduce  
unsolvable problem on purpose.

Evidence is always relative to some theory.

But no theories suggest 3p randomness in nature. Comp and Everett  
explains appearance of randomness, but they are particular case of  
the FPI, and are not 3p, only 1p (hopefully plural).

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?



On 09 May 2013, at 20:11, meekerdb wrote:


On 5/9/2013 10:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Von Neumann thought the extra baggage was required to make the  
model match our observations, but Everett later showed that step  
was unnecessary.  The model (free of additional baggage) predicts  
the same observations as the model with it.


He showed that IF the wave function separates into orthogonal  
components (an irreversible process) then FPI explains the  
observations.  But the model says it never does that; it only  
approximates that, in certain bases.  Decoherence theory tries to  
fill in the process by which this occurs give a statistical  
mechanics type account of irreversibility.  But you could also take  
the epistemological interpretation of Peres and Fuchs instead of  
inventing other worlds just to save the determinism of an equation.   
I like MWI and Bruno's FPI idea, but without some testable  
prediction (not retrodiction) I don't find them compelling.


Comp explains that Peres and Fuchs is still a "*many* epistemological  
views", like Mermin's "relations without relata".
Those are even closer to comp than Everett, where we can still be  
physical-realistic about the branches of the waves.
The Quantum wave should indeed describe a first person plural  
knowledge states, with comp. That's why comp is more "many dreams"  
than "many-worlds".


Then comp leads to a precise very simple scheme of non trivial TOEs  
(SK theory, arithmetic, degree four diophantine polynomial, etc.).


And from it you can get the whole physics. Sorry if up to now it  
describes the current physics. May be the physicists were not so bad  
observers after all.
The new theory is far simpler. It is too young to predict an unseen  
particle, but that is only a matter of (a lot of) work, for the next  
generations. It is also the only theory, to my knowledge, which  
explains completely the relation and difference between qualia and  
quanta, beyond the "why" of the apparent MW.


Note that the comp TOE is just arithmetic, but comp itself is not: it  
has the theological component of believing in the physical digital  
reincarnation possibility.


Bruno






Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On 09 May 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, May 9, 2013  Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> Roulette wheels are not random, they can be modeled as Newtonian  
mechanisms, exactly like cuckoo clocks.

No they are not exactly alike. A tiny change in a cuckoo clock  
causes a tiny change in the clock's performance, but a tiny change  
in the roulette wheel causes a HUGE change in the wheel's  
performance, and conceivably the change might be so small that we're  
talking about a quantum event. And if you don't like roulette then a  
electronic circuit that detects shot noise or a Geiger counter.

> You can accept that true randomness is fundamental, and thus, not  
explainable

I can accept that it is conceivable. I do not think that nature is  
obligated to arrange things in such a way that human beings can  
always understand them.

> but the MWI and Bruno's FPI provide a compelling contrary  
hypothesis.

I like the MWI because it doesn't have to explain what a observer or  
a observation is not because it gets rid of randomness.  Personally  
I don't see much difference between saying something happened for no  
cause and saying something happened for a cause that can't ever be  
detected even in theory. And to tell you the truth I can't keep up  
with Bruno's homemade acronyms and terms and have quite forgotten  
what "FPI" even stands for.

FPI is "First Person Indeterminacy".

You are the only one having a problem with this (step 3 of UDA),  
except Bill who has a problem with comp (step 0 of UDA).
(And the comp I talk about is a weakening and more precise definition  
of the antic mechanist conception of mind and life). It is used by  
Deutsch, Everett, most (weak and strong) materialists, and is the  
object of many studies. It just the idea that the we can survive with  
a mechanical artificial brain, like we think we can survive with an  
artificial heart.

Comp is opposed to fake pseudo-religion and is sometimes sum up by "no  
magic". Then I show that comp leads to the realization that we did  
have a magical conception of matter, and that we must dispense with  
it, leading to a testable explanation of where and how the physical  
laws emerged.

I think Brett is right in his motivation question. Your deeply  
contradictory attitude about the FPI masks some deep religious  
prejudices that you seem not even being aware of.

You and Bill confirmed very precisely my statement that the  
vindicative strong atheists are the one unable to go out of the  
Christian Aristotelian theological foundations.

Bruno

And speaking of profound mysteries, why isn't acronym a acronym? Hey  
wait a minute it is!  Arranged Chronological Reassignment Of Names  
You Manipulate; acronym for short.

  John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?



On 09 May 2013, at 19:02, Jason Resch wrote:





On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 11:14 AM, meekerdb   
wrote:

On 5/9/2013 2:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 08 May 2013, at 22:46, meekerdb wrote:

On 5/8/2013 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 08 May 2013, at 11:56, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 07 May 2013, at 20:55, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, May 6, 2013  John Mikes  wrote:

there is no random decay or anything else


There is no way you can deduce that from pure reason and the  
experimental

evidence strongly indicates that  you are wrong about that.

only things that happen without our - so far - accessed explanation.


And thanks to experiments involving Bell's inequality we know for a  
fact
that if apparently random things happen for a reason they can't be  
local
reasons; for example the reason the coin came up heads right now is  
because
a billion years in the FUTURE a butterfly like creature on a planet  
in the

Andromeda Galaxy flapped it's wings twice instead of 3 times.



Hi Bruno,

You assume the collapse of the wave. There are experimental evidences
against it,

Could you elaborate?

I was thinking to quantum erasure experiments. We can make a wave  
"collapse", by some measurement, and still make it cohere again, by  
erasing the memory of the experience/the result of the experiment.  
If observation did collapse or select irreversibly, that could not  
make sense.


But it isn't a "measurement" if you can make it cohere again.  A  
measurement is irreversbile, "erasing" means reversing the process  
that, if it were not erased could have become a measurement.


You beg the question. Nothing is irreversible.

On the contrary it is you who are begging the question.  You are  
claiming that measurements are reversible because your theory says  
they are reversible, even though in practice they are not, and this  
shows your theory is right.



For practical reason macroscopic measurement seems irreversible, as  
we cannot track the leaking of information, and can no more  
practically erase it. Quantum erasure algorithm would not work if  
measurement were irreversible, and what such local measurement,  
where we can still erase the information and get back to coherence  
shows that the collapse is not well defined. Of course Einstein  
already shows that the collapse cannot be covariant, and Bohr  
acknowledged that it cannot be a physical event, but then why to  
introduce it to begin with (except the wanting to be unique).


Yes, it's a mathematical operation.  In decoherence theory, it's  
taking a trace.  I'm quite willing to entertain the idea of FPI, but  
it's till randomness.


Brent


My preference for the MWI has nothing to do with a personal  
preference for determinism or indeterminism.  I prefer MWI because  
it is a literal reading of the equations, free of any additional of  
baggage.


Von Neumann thought the extra baggage was required to make the model  
match our observations, but Everett later showed that step was  
unnecessary.  The model (free of additional baggage) predicts the  
same observations as the model with it.   Since it has been shown to  
be unnecessary let's dispense with it already!



Indeed. Even more so when you see that the collapse is really an axiom  
saying that the theory (QM) does not apply to observation. The old QM  
is really like "QM + QM is false".
Then there has been that myth that "observation perturbs", making the  
collapse looking very much like a physical normal thing to happen, but  
Einstein made the remark that if that was the case, the observation  
can no more be covariant, and Bohr replied simply "OK, that collapse  
is not a physical process", but then what is it?


Bruno





Jason


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?



On 09 May 2013, at 18:14, meekerdb wrote:


On 5/9/2013 2:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 08 May 2013, at 22:46, meekerdb wrote:


On 5/8/2013 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 08 May 2013, at 11:56, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal  
 wrote:


On 07 May 2013, at 20:55, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, May 6, 2013  John Mikes  wrote:


there is no random decay or anything else



There is no way you can deduce that from pure reason and the  
experimental

evidence strongly indicates that  you are wrong about that.

only things that happen without our - so far - accessed  
explanation.



And thanks to experiments involving Bell's inequality we know  
for a fact
that if apparently random things happen for a reason they can't  
be local
reasons; for example the reason the coin came up heads right  
now is because
a billion years in the FUTURE a butterfly like creature on a  
planet in the

Andromeda Galaxy flapped it's wings twice instead of 3 times.




Hi Bruno,

You assume the collapse of the wave. There are experimental  
evidences

against it,


Could you elaborate?


I was thinking to quantum erasure experiments. We can make a wave  
"collapse", by some measurement, and still make it cohere again,  
by erasing the memory of the experience/the result of the  
experiment. If observation did collapse or select irreversibly,  
that could not make sense.


But it isn't a "measurement" if you can make it cohere again.  A  
measurement is irreversbile, "erasing" means reversing the process  
that, if it were not erased could have become a measurement.


You beg the question. Nothing is irreversible.


On the contrary it is you who are begging the question.  You are  
claiming that measurements are reversible because your theory says  
they are reversible, even though in practice they are not, and this  
shows your theory is right.


To be sure, this is an open problem in comp, but the material  
hypostases suggest that the core physics will be symmetrical, but we  
can't say much more. But the empirical evidences is that everything is  
reversible in nature, even falling in a black hole. There is no  
experimental evidences that something is irreversible in nature. The  
collapse of the wave has never been well defined, and Everett shows it  
to be spurious. Apparent irreversibility is easily explained by the  
theory.







For practical reason macroscopic measurement seems irreversible, as  
we cannot track the leaking of information, and can no more  
practically erase it. Quantum erasure algorithm would not work if  
measurement were irreversible, and what such local measurement,  
where we can still erase the information and get back to coherence  
shows that the collapse is not well defined. Of course Einstein  
already shows that the collapse cannot be covariant, and Bohr  
acknowledged that it cannot be a physical event, but then why to  
introduce it to begin with (except the wanting to be unique).


Yes, it's a mathematical operation.  In decoherence theory, it's  
taking a trace.  I'm quite willing to entertain the idea of FPI, but  
it's till randomness.


But a first person one, which exists "trivially" when we bet we are  
duplicable, or machines. It is an important randomness playing a big  
role, but it is not a physical randomness, only a psychological or  
theological, whatever.


Bruno






Brent










Quantum computation algorithm also support the relative "physical  
reality" of the superposition states.


The collapse is not even an axiom. It is a meta-axiom saying  
'don't listen to the theory when she talk about you or your body.  
She get absolutelly crazy, like if we could be ourself in  
superposiion states Ha ha ha!".


Without the Born axiom there'd be no way to related QM to actual  
observations.  According to the Schrodinger equation nothing every  
really happens.



Nothing or everything happens, with the SWE or with arithmetic.  
Then it is a matter of listening and studying the memory content of  
the subsystem inside. They do believe things happen, and they are  
right.
And the Born axioms can be extracted from SWE + COMP (+ FPI). Only  
problem: the logic asks to derive the SWE too, and this works well  
up to now.


Bruno







Brent








and there are no experimental evidence of any randomness other
than some FPI, on the branch of a universal wave, or, as we  
need with comp,

on arithmetic.
To believe in events without cause or reason is ... pseudo- 
religion. It is a
belief in something without any evidences, to introduce  
unsolvable problem

on purpose.


This is a strong argument in favor of theories like comp, or at  
least
some form of many-worlds. "True randomness" strikes me as an  
euphemism

for magic.


I suspect you mean "true physical randomness", or a 3p  
randomness, but this still exist mathematically, and  
experimentally, like when splitting beams of photons are  
observed, of course it is only first person

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?



On 09 May 2013, at 18:08, meekerdb wrote:


On 5/9/2013 1:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think that requires a wave function collapse, it's  
explained by Everett's MWI also, which is a kind of non-local  
hidden variable.


Why non local? There is nothing non local in Everett's MWI.


Sure it is.  When you take the trace of the density matrix over the  
environment to get a set of orthogonal subspaces that's a non-local,  
mathematical operation.


Local is about physical reality, not mathematical operation. The wave  
describing the physical (physicists included) evolves  
deterministically and locally. Non locality is in the (mathematical)  
appearances.


Bruno






Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On 09 May 2013, at 17:46, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

>> Well, a pseudo-religion is certainly superior to a full fledged  
religion,

 > ?

Which word didn't you understand?

>> but a religion that is not illogical is not a religion,

>  ?

Which word didn't you understand?

I think I understood all words. It is the sentence or proposition  
which makes no sense.
How could a pseudo-religion, fake by definition, be superior to  
anything?
And why should a religion be illogical? This is just by of the  
Aristotelian dogma, or the need in blind faith, which is the opposite  
of the mystical and rational approach.

>> please explain to me exactly why a event without a cause is  
illogical. What law of logic does it violate?

> I think that you confuse false and inconsistent.

I believe I understand the distinction rather well, in one a  
proposition comes into conflict with reality and in the other it  
just comes into conflict with the logical system you've come up with  
and so its conceivable that the problem could be with the logical  
system and not with the proposition; although this is unlikely if  
you trust the system.

> An event without cause, assuming "cause" means something, might  
not be a problem for logic,

There is no "might" about it.

> but it is a problem for physics.

What problem is that? I don't understand why randomness is a bigger  
physical problem than determinism, both cuckoo clocks and roulette  
wheels  coexist peacefully in our world.

Roulette wheel does not ask for any event without a cause.

> it is poor explanation, if explanation at all.

It is a pure act of faith to assume that everything has a explanation,

That is the act of faith of the rationalist, indeed.

I admit that is the correct default position to take whenever a  
scientist encounters a new phenomenon because if you don't even look  
for something you will never find it,

Very good.

but some things might have no explanation.

Why? And why bet on that?

Perhaps we should count ourselves lucky that anything has a  
explanation.

Or perhaps there is an explanation for that.

And before anybody tries for the 'th time to freak me out by  
calling me religious let me remind you that "God did it" is a  
explanation,

It is a fact, with the large definition of God I gave. As an  
explanation it is as absurd to explain the existence of the moon by  
the fact that we see the moon.

a very bad and stupid explanation but a explanation nevertheless.

Not at all. For the rational theologian, it is a mysterious fact in  
need of an explanation. Again, you limit theology to what some  
contingent politics have restricted by use of violence.

No explanation is vastly superior to a idiotic explanation.

Absolutely, but so let us not even mention the crackpot in the field,  
and let us concentrate on the genuine problem.
In this case, beyond the mystery of our understanding of the natural  
numbers---which we can "meta-explain" in mathematical logic + the meta- 
assumption that we are locally consistent machines---there are no  
evidence that some events lack of explanation, so let us not bet on  
genuine randomness in nature prematurely.

Bruno

 John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-09 Thread Stephen Paul King

If I may. We do so because we cannot account for such undetectable 'things'
except perhaps as some randomness in the system that we can observe.


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:21 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>
>> But as a rule-of-thumb it is better to tentatively assume things we
>>> cannot see don't exist.
>>>
>>>
>>
> I meant to ask: Why?
>
> Jason
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/K7E-Vfwj4QU/unsubscribe?hl=en
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:21 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>
> But as a rule-of-thumb it is better to tentatively assume things we cannot
>> see don't exist.
>>
>>
>
I meant to ask: Why?

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:21 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 5/9/2013 1:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 5/9/2013 12:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:08 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>  On 5/9/2013 11:28 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:11 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>>
  On 5/9/2013 10:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

 Von Neumann thought the extra baggage was required to make the model
 match our observations, but Everett later showed that step was
 unnecessary.  The model (free of additional baggage) predicts the same
 observations as the model with it.


  He showed that IF the wave function separates into orthogonal
 components (an irreversible process) then FPI explains the observations.
 But the model says it never does that; it only approximates that, in
 certain bases.

>>>
>>>  Could you explain this?  I don't understand in what sense the
>>> Schrodinger equation can only approximate itself?
>>>
>>>
>>>  If you include the observer and the system observed then when the
>>> observer interacts with system in superposition the observers state becomes
>>> a superposition
>>>
>>
>>  I follow you so far.  To confirm we are on the same page, so you think
>> observers are special in any physical way from any other "non observer" in
>> a physical system?
>>
>>
>>>  in the same basis.  The cross-terms in the superposition are not zero.
>>>
>>
>>  Do they need to be, what if they are not zero?  How does a
>> single-universe interpretation avoid this issue?
>>
>>
>>>  They can be shown to become approximately zero if you  include
>>> interaction with an environment that has a large number of degrees of
>>> freedom and you trace over the environment variables.  But that last step
>>> isn't part of the Schrodinger equation, it's a separate assumption
>>> comparable to Boltzmann's assumption of molecular chaos.
>>>
>>
>>  Earlier you said it can be shown, so how is it an assumption?  Or do
>> you mean it is an assumption that the environment has a large number of
>> degrees of freedom?
>>
>>
>>  That and that the interaction is such that it diagonalizes in the
>> variable(s) of interest.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
   Decoherence theory tries to fill in the process by which this occurs
 give a statistical mechanics type account of irreversibility.

>>>
>>>  It gives an account of the appearance of an "irreversible
>>> wave-function collapse" without their having to be one.  It is derived
>>> entirely from the theory of QM and is not an extra postulate.
>>>
>>>
>>>  It depends on the choice of basis.  In general there's other some basis
>>> in which state is pure.  Decoherence says the density of the subsystem is
>>> approximately diagonal in a particular basis.  This involves assumptions
>>> about the environment and is not part of the wave function.
>>>
>>>
>>  It doesn't matter which/whose basis you use though, does it?
>>
>>
>>  It's not "whose" but "which".  Most measurements are modeled as position
>> measurements but you can invent ones that are measurements in momentum
>> space too.  But in general you can't create a measurement to determine the
>> pure state which includes the environment.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
   But you could also take the epistemological interpretation of Peres
 and Fuchs instead of inventing other worlds just to save the determinism of
 an equation.

>>>
>>>  The other worlds are a required element of the theory, unless you deny
>>> the reality of superposition.  I think Everett's thought experiment
>>> explains the situation the best:
>>>
>>>  Imagine a box with an observe in it who will be measuring the state of
>>> a particle and writing the result in a notebook.  This box is entirely
>>> sealed off from the external world such that the internal result of the
>>> experiment remains in a superposition until it is opened.  Now a second,
>>> external observer models the entire evolution of this box over time,
>>> including before and after the observer inside measures the state of the
>>> particle and records the result in a notebook.  He determines the
>>> superposition of all the possible handwritings of all the possible results
>>> in the notebook.  Is the internal observer not conscious in each of the
>>> various superpositions resulting from the measurement?
>>>
>>>
>>>  Depends on what you mean by THE internal observer.  There is a
>>> superposition of states that represents the external observers theory of
>>> the internal observer.
>>>
>>
>>  Okay, then from the view point of the external observers, shouldn't the
>> various internal observers who remain in a super position, include
>> observers each with a memories of recording one of the results in the log
>> book, and in their brain?  What happens to these memories (and presumably
>> the experiences) when the external observer opens the ro

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?


On 5/9/2013 1:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 5/9/2013 12:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:08 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 5/9/2013 11:28 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:11 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 5/9/2013 10:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

Von Neumann thought the extra baggage was required to make the model
match our observations, but Everett later showed that step was
unnecessary.  The model (free of additional baggage) predicts the 
same
observations as the model with it.


He showed that IF the wave function separates into orthogonal 
components
(an irreversible process) then FPI explains the observations.  But 
the
model says it never does that; it only approximates that, in 
certain bases.


Could you explain this?  I don't understand in what sense the 
Schrodinger
equation can only approximate itself?


If you include the observer and the system observed then when the 
observer
interacts with system in superposition the observers state becomes a 
superposition


I follow you so far.  To confirm we are on the same page, so you think 
observers
are special in any physical way from any other "non observer" in a physical 
system?

in the same basis.  The cross-terms in the superposition are not zero.


Do they need to be, what if they are not zero?  How does a single-universe
interpretation avoid this issue?

They can be shown to become approximately zero if you  include 
interaction with
an environment that has a large number of degrees of freedom and you 
trace over
the environment variables.  But that last step isn't part of the 
Schrodinger
equation, it's a separate assumption comparable to Boltzmann's 
assumption of
molecular chaos.


Earlier you said it can be shown, so how is it an assumption?  Or do you 
mean it is
an assumption that the environment has a large number of degrees of freedom?


That and that the interaction is such that it diagonalizes in the 
variable(s) of
interest.






Decoherence theory tries to fill in the process by which this 
occurs give
a statistical mechanics type account of irreversibility.


It gives an account of the appearance of an "irreversible wave-function
collapse" without their having to be one.  It is derived entirely from 
the
theory of QM and is not an extra postulate.


It depends on the choice of basis.  In general there's other some basis 
in
which state is pure.  Decoherence says the density of the subsystem is
approximately diagonal in a particular basis.  This involves 
assumptions about
the environment and is not part of the wave function.


It doesn't matter which/whose basis you use though, does it?


It's not "whose" but "which".  Most measurements are modeled as position
measurements but you can invent ones that are measurements in momentum space too. 
But in general you can't create a measurement to determine the pure state which

includes the environment.




  But you could also take the epistemological interpretation of 
Peres and
Fuchs instead of inventing other worlds just to save the 
determinism of an
equation.


The other worlds are a required element of the theory, unless you deny 
the
reality of superposition.  I think Everett's thought experiment 
explains the
situation the best:

Imagine a box with an observe in it who will be measuring the state of a
particle and writing the result in a notebook.  This box is entirely 
sealed
off from the external world such that the internal result of the 
experiment
remains in a superposition until it is opened.  Now a second, external
observer models the entire evolution of this box over time, including 
before
and after the observer inside measures the state of the particle and 
records
the result in a notebook.  He determines the superposition of all the 
possible
handwritings of all the possible results in the notebook.  Is the 
internal
observer not conscious in each of the various superpositions resulting 
from
the measurement?


Depends on what you mean by THE internal observer.  There is a 
superposition of
states that represents the external observers theory of the internal 
observer.


Okay, then from the view point of the external observers, shouldn't the 
various
internal observers who remain in a super position, include observers each 
with a
memories of recording one of the results in the log book, and in their 
brain?

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 5/9/2013 12:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:08 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 5/9/2013 11:28 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:11 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>  On 5/9/2013 10:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>> Von Neumann thought the extra baggage was required to make the model
>>> match our observations, but Everett later showed that step was
>>> unnecessary.  The model (free of additional baggage) predicts the same
>>> observations as the model with it.
>>>
>>>
>>>  He showed that IF the wave function separates into orthogonal
>>> components (an irreversible process) then FPI explains the observations.
>>> But the model says it never does that; it only approximates that, in
>>> certain bases.
>>>
>>
>>  Could you explain this?  I don't understand in what sense the
>> Schrodinger equation can only approximate itself?
>>
>>
>>  If you include the observer and the system observed then when the
>> observer interacts with system in superposition the observers state becomes
>> a superposition
>>
>
>  I follow you so far.  To confirm we are on the same page, so you think
> observers are special in any physical way from any other "non observer" in
> a physical system?
>
>
>>  in the same basis.  The cross-terms in the superposition are not zero.
>>
>
>  Do they need to be, what if they are not zero?  How does a
> single-universe interpretation avoid this issue?
>
>
>>  They can be shown to become approximately zero if you  include
>> interaction with an environment that has a large number of degrees of
>> freedom and you trace over the environment variables.  But that last step
>> isn't part of the Schrodinger equation, it's a separate assumption
>> comparable to Boltzmann's assumption of molecular chaos.
>>
>
>  Earlier you said it can be shown, so how is it an assumption?  Or do you
> mean it is an assumption that the environment has a large number of degrees
> of freedom?
>
>
> That and that the interaction is such that it diagonalizes in the
> variable(s) of interest.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>   Decoherence theory tries to fill in the process by which this occurs
>>> give a statistical mechanics type account of irreversibility.
>>>
>>
>>  It gives an account of the appearance of an "irreversible wave-function
>> collapse" without their having to be one.  It is derived entirely from the
>> theory of QM and is not an extra postulate.
>>
>>
>>  It depends on the choice of basis.  In general there's other some basis
>> in which state is pure.  Decoherence says the density of the subsystem is
>> approximately diagonal in a particular basis.  This involves assumptions
>> about the environment and is not part of the wave function.
>>
>>
>  It doesn't matter which/whose basis you use though, does it?
>
>
> It's not "whose" but "which".  Most measurements are modeled as position
> measurements but you can invent ones that are measurements in momentum
> space too.  But in general you can't create a measurement to determine the
> pure state which includes the environment.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>   But you could also take the epistemological interpretation of Peres
>>> and Fuchs instead of inventing other worlds just to save the determinism of
>>> an equation.
>>>
>>
>>  The other worlds are a required element of the theory, unless you deny
>> the reality of superposition.  I think Everett's thought experiment
>> explains the situation the best:
>>
>>  Imagine a box with an observe in it who will be measuring the state of
>> a particle and writing the result in a notebook.  This box is entirely
>> sealed off from the external world such that the internal result of the
>> experiment remains in a superposition until it is opened.  Now a second,
>> external observer models the entire evolution of this box over time,
>> including before and after the observer inside measures the state of the
>> particle and records the result in a notebook.  He determines the
>> superposition of all the possible handwritings of all the possible results
>> in the notebook.  Is the internal observer not conscious in each of the
>> various superpositions resulting from the measurement?
>>
>>
>>  Depends on what you mean by THE internal observer.  There is a
>> superposition of states that represents the external observers theory of
>> the internal observer.
>>
>
>  Okay, then from the view point of the external observers, shouldn't the
> various internal observers who remain in a super position, include
> observers each with a memories of recording one of the results in the log
> book, and in their brain?  What happens to these memories (and presumably
> the experiences) when the external observer opens the room and collapses
> the superposition?  Are we to believe all the memories and experiences that
> internal observer had are retroactively erased from existence and in fact,
> never happened at all?
>
>
> No, we believe the external obser

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-09 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 5:07:55 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote:
>
> I (John M) feel in some remarks my text has been mixed with words of John 
> Clark's. I never referred to that 'butterfly' hoax. I have second thoughts 
> whenever someone comes up with (Q?-)physical marvels showing 'internal' 
> randomness: the marvels are well fictionized to show such. 
> Even thinking in proper(?) conventional science terms: RANDOM occurrences 
> would eliminate the possibility of sci. prediction and proper conclusions. 
> Agnostic, or not.
>
> To John (Clark)'s PRIVATE(?) question: I stuck my nose into astrology 60+ 
> years ago, for a short while. Numerology was always one of my favorite 
> sources of laughter. 
>
 
I would recommend 
http://www.amazon.com/Numerology-Complete-Guide-Matthew-Goodwin/dp/1564148599#reader_1564148599
 
for Numerology. I don't know that it's especially funny, but it is very 
thorough and concise.

Craig

 

> My agnosticism is leaning on my successful 38 patents in conventional 
> polymer technology. I developed questions.
> I did not inform you about these facts to trigger more of your time for my 
> thoughts. 
> John Mikes
>
>
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 4:16 PM, John Mikes 
> > wrote:
>
>> John Clark:
>> the reason I 'post' is to get argumentation BEYOND the general negative 
>> you submit. Experimental evidence is a fairy-tale based on assumptions upon 
>> presumptions believed to be 'true'. Like: the 'physical world' in 
>> conventional science. 
>> I would love to learn from you (and others) if your post is reasonable 
>> and meaningful. No 'feelings', please. 
>>
>> Bell's inequality is within the EPR assumption (pardon me: thought 
>> experiment). The consequences are well thought of. Math-phys predictions 
>> and conclusions ditto. Conventional science is a useful practicality 
>> (almost true, that almost works well with some mishaps and some later 
>> corrections).
>> After 1/2 century successfully working within it I arrived at my agnostic 
>> stance. Believe it, or not, we still hve novelties to get by and they may 
>> change our as-(pre-)sumptions. 
>>
>> John  Mikes
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:55 PM, John Clark 
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, May 6, 2013  John Mikes > wrote:
>>>
>>>  > there is no random decay or anything else

>>>
>>> There is no way you can deduce that from pure reason and the 
>>> experimental evidence strongly indicates that  you are wrong about that.  
>>>  
>>> > only things that happen without our - so far - accessed explanation. 

>>>  
>>> And thanks to experiments involving Bell's inequality we know for a fact 
>>> that if apparently random things happen for a reason they can't be local 
>>> reasons; for example the reason the coin came up heads right now is because 
>>> a billion years in the FUTURE a butterfly like creature on a planet in the 
>>> Andromeda Galaxy flapped it's wings twice instead of 3 times.  
>>>
>>>   John K Clark
>>>  
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>>> To post to this group, send email to 
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com
>>> .
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>  
>>>  
>>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On 5/9/2013 12:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:08 PM, meekerdb > wrote:

On 5/9/2013 11:28 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:11 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 5/9/2013 10:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

Von Neumann thought the extra baggage was required to make the model
match our
observations, but Everett later showed that step was unnecessary. The
model
(free of additional baggage) predicts the same observations as the
model with it.

He showed that IF the wave function separates into orthogonal
components (an
irreversible process) then FPI explains the observations. But the
model says
it never does that; it only approximates that, in certain bases.

Could you explain this? I don't understand in what sense the Schrodinger
equation
can only approximate itself?

If you include the observer and the system observed then when the observer
interacts
with system in superposition the observers state becomes a superposition

I follow you so far. To confirm we are on the same page, so you think observers are
special in any physical way from any other "non observer" in a physical system?

in the same basis. The cross-terms in the superposition are not zero.

Do they need to be, what if they are not zero? How does a single-universe
interpretation avoid this issue?

They can be shown to become approximately zero if you include interaction
with an
environment that has a large number of degrees of freedom and you trace
over the
environment variables. But that last step isn't part of the Schrodinger
equation,
it's a separate assumption comparable to Boltzmann's assumption of
molecular chaos.

Earlier you said it can be shown, so how is it an assumption? Or do you mean it is an
assumption that the environment has a large number of degrees of freedom?

That and that the interaction is such that it diagonalizes in the variable(s)
of interest.

Decoherence theory tries to fill in the process by which this occurs
give a
statistical mechanics type account of irreversibility.

It gives an account of the appearance of an "irreversible wave-function
collapse"
without their having to be one. It is derived entirely from the theory of
QM and
is not an extra postulate.

It depends on the choice of basis. In general there's other some basis in
which
state is pure. Decoherence says the density of the subsystem is
approximately
diagonal in a particular basis. This involves assumptions about the
environment and
is not part of the wave function.

It doesn't matter which/whose basis you use though, does it?

It's not "whose" but "which". Most measurements are modeled as position measurements but
you can invent ones that are measurements in momentum space too. But in general you can't
create a measurement to determine the pure state which includes the environment.

But you could also take the epistemological interpretation of Peres and
Fuchs
instead of inventing other worlds just to save the determinism of an
equation.

The other worlds are a required element of the theory, unless you deny the
reality
of superposition. I think Everett's thought experiment explains the
situation the
best:

Imagine a box with an observe in it who will be measuring the state of a
particle
and writing the result in a notebook. This box is entirely sealed off from
the
external world such that the internal result of the experiment remains in a
superposition until it is opened. Now a second, external observer models
the
entire evolution of this box over time, including before and after the
observer
inside measures the state of the particle and records the result in a
notebook. He
determines the superposition of all the possible handwritings of all the
possible
results in the notebook. Is the internal observer not conscious in each of
the
various superpositions resulting from the measurement?

Depends on what you mean by THE internal observer. There is a superposition
of
states that represents the external observers theory of the internal
observer.

Okay, then from the view point of the external observers, shouldn't the various internal
observers who remain in a super position, include observers each with a memories of
recording one of the results in the log book, and in their brain? What happens to these
memories (and presumably the experiences) when the external observer opens the room and
collapses the superposition? Are we to believe all the memories and experiences that
internal observer had are retroactively erased from existence and in fact, never
happened at all?

No, we believe the external observer needs to update the wave function he's using to
describe the internal

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:08 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 5/9/2013 11:28 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:11 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 5/9/2013 10:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>> Von Neumann thought the extra baggage was required to make the model
>> match our observations, but Everett later showed that step was
>> unnecessary.  The model (free of additional baggage) predicts the same
>> observations as the model with it.
>>
>>
>>  He showed that IF the wave function separates into orthogonal
>> components (an irreversible process) then FPI explains the observations.
>> But the model says it never does that; it only approximates that, in
>> certain bases.
>>
>
>  Could you explain this?  I don't understand in what sense the
> Schrodinger equation can only approximate itself?
>
>
> If you include the observer and the system observed then when the observer
> interacts with system in superposition the observers state becomes a
> superposition
>

I follow you so far.  To confirm we are on the same page, so you think
observers are special in any physical way from any other "non observer" in
a physical system?


> in the same basis.  The cross-terms in the superposition are not zero.
>

Do they need to be, what if they are not zero?  How does a single-universe
interpretation avoid this issue?


> They can be shown to become approximately zero if you  include interaction
> with an environment that has a large number of degrees of freedom and you
> trace over the environment variables.  But that last step isn't part of the
> Schrodinger equation, it's a separate assumption comparable to Boltzmann's
> assumption of molecular chaos.
>

Earlier you said it can be shown, so how is it an assumption?  Or do you
mean it is an assumption that the environment has a large number of degrees
of freedom?


>
>
>
>
>>   Decoherence theory tries to fill in the process by which this occurs
>> give a statistical mechanics type account of irreversibility.
>>
>
>  It gives an account of the appearance of an "irreversible wave-function
> collapse" without their having to be one.  It is derived entirely from the
> theory of QM and is not an extra postulate.
>
>
> It depends on the choice of basis.  In general there's other some basis in
> which state is pure.  Decoherence says the density of the subsystem is
> approximately diagonal in a particular basis.  This involves assumptions
> about the environment and is not part of the wave function.
>
>
It doesn't matter which/whose basis you use though, does it?


>
>
>
>>   But you could also take the epistemological interpretation of Peres and
>> Fuchs instead of inventing other worlds just to save the determinism of an
>> equation.
>>
>
>  The other worlds are a required element of the theory, unless you deny
> the reality of superposition.  I think Everett's thought experiment
> explains the situation the best:
>
>  Imagine a box with an observe in it who will be measuring the state of a
> particle and writing the result in a notebook.  This box is entirely sealed
> off from the external world such that the internal result of the experiment
> remains in a superposition until it is opened.  Now a second, external
> observer models the entire evolution of this box over time, including
> before and after the observer inside measures the state of the particle and
> records the result in a notebook.  He determines the superposition of all
> the possible handwritings of all the possible results in the notebook.  Is
> the internal observer not conscious in each of the various superpositions
> resulting from the measurement?
>
>
> Depends on what you mean by THE internal observer.  There is a
> superposition of states that represents the external observers theory of
> the internal observer.
>

Okay, then from the view point of the external observers, shouldn't the
various internal observers who remain in a super position, include
observers each with a memories of recording one of the results in the log
book, and in their brain?  What happens to these memories (and presumably
the experiences) when the external observer opens the room and collapses
the superposition?  Are we to believe all the memories and experiences that
internal observer had are retroactively erased from existence and in fact,
never happened at all?


>
>
>
>  Epistemological interpretations seem to deny there is any fundamental
> reality at all, aside from what we can see and learn, which to me seems
> like a dead end in the search for truth.
>
>
> Shifting the truth off to undetectable realms doesn't help much.
>

They are implied by the model of reality.  Just like the galaxies beyond
the cosmological horizon are implied by some models of inflation.  Why
contort a perfectly good and simple theory to make it match our (known)
limited perceptive capacities?  To me, single universe theories are as
silly as any theory of inflation which said: "Once a galaxy crosses beyond
our cosmological horizon, it

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-09 Thread John Mikes

Bruno I stand corrected. You wrote:

*"Randomness exists in math. Indeed the vast majority of numbers written in
any base is random (incompressible). But there are no evidence at all of
random 3p phenomenon in nature, and to bet on them seems like abandoning
research."*
*
*
I accept math-randomness in form of: *TAKE ANY NUMBER.  *
Then again I consider 'math' a product of the human mind.

John M

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 08 May 2013, at 17:35, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 5/8/2013 1:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>  On 07 May 2013, at 20:55, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2013  John Mikes  wrote:
>
>  > there is no random decay or anything else
>>
>
> There is no way you can deduce that from pure reason and the experimental
> evidence strongly indicates that  you are wrong about that.
>
>   > only things that happen without our - so far - accessed explanation.
>>
>
> And thanks to experiments involving Bell's inequality we know for a fact
> that if apparently random things happen for a reason they can't be local
> reasons; for example the reason the coin came up heads right now is because
> a billion years in the FUTURE a butterfly like creature on a planet in the
> Andromeda Galaxy flapped it's wings twice instead of 3 times.
>
>
>  You assume the collapse of the wave.
>
>
> I don't think that requires a wave function collapse, it's explained by
> Everett's MWI also, which is a kind of non-local hidden variable.
>
>
> Why non local? There is nothing non local in Everett's MWI.
>
>
>
>
>  There are experimental evidences against it, and there are no
> experimental evidence of any randomness other than some FPI, on the branch
> of a universal wave, or, as we need with comp, on arithmetic.
> To believe in events without cause or reason is ... pseudo-religion.
>
>
> No it's just the other sect; opposite the one that believes there can be
> no randomness.
>
>
> Randomness exists in math. Indeed the vast majority of numbers written in
> any base is random (incompressible). But there are no evidence at all of
> random 3p phenomenon in nature, and to bet on them seems like abandoning
> research.
>
>
>
>
>  It is a belief in something without any evidences, to introduce
> unsolvable problem on purpose.
>
>
> Evidence is always relative to some theory.
>
>
> But no theories suggest 3p randomness in nature. Comp and Everett explains
> appearance of randomness, but they are particular case of the FPI, and are
> not 3p, only 1p (hopefully plural).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On 5/9/2013 11:28 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:11 PM, meekerdb > wrote:

On 5/9/2013 10:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

Von Neumann thought the extra baggage was required to make the model match
our
observations, but Everett later showed that step was unnecessary. The
model (free
of additional baggage) predicts the same observations as the model with it.

He showed that IF the wave function separates into orthogonal components (an
irreversible process) then FPI explains the observations. But the model
says it
never does that; it only approximates that, in certain bases.

Could you explain this? I don't understand in what sense the Schrodinger equation can
only approximate itself?

If you include the observer and the system observed then when the observer interacts with
system in superposition the observers state becomes a superposition in the same basis.
The cross-terms in the superposition are not zero. They can be shown to become
approximately zero if you include interaction with an environment that has a large number
of degrees of freedom and you trace over the environment variables. But that last step
isn't part of the Schrodinger equation, it's a separate assumption comparable to
Boltzmann's assumption of molecular chaos.

Decoherence theory tries to fill in the process by which this occurs give
a
statistical mechanics type account of irreversibility.

It gives an account of the appearance of an "irreversible wave-function collapse"
without their having to be one. It is derived entirely from the theory of QM and is not
an extra postulate.

It depends on the choice of basis. In general there's other some basis in which state is
pure. Decoherence says the density of the subsystem is approximately diagonal in a
particular basis. This involves assumptions about the environment and is not part of the
wave function.

But you could also take the epistemological interpretation of Peres and
Fuchs
instead of inventing other worlds just to save the determinism of an
equation.

The other worlds are a required element of the theory, unless you deny the reality of
superposition. I think Everett's thought experiment explains the situation the best:

Imagine a box with an observe in it who will be measuring the state of a particle and
writing the result in a notebook. This box is entirely sealed off from the external
world such that the internal result of the experiment remains in a superposition until
it is opened. Now a second, external observer models the entire evolution of this box
over time, including before and after the observer inside measures the state of the
particle and records the result in a notebook. He determines the superposition of all
the possible handwritings of all the possible results in the notebook. Is the internal
observer not conscious in each of the various superpositions resulting from the measurement?

Depends on what you mean by THE internal observer. There is a superposition of states
that represents the external observers theory of the internal observer.

Epistemological interpretations seem to deny there is any fundamental reality at all,
aside from what we can see and learn, which to me seems like a dead end in the search
for truth.

Shifting the truth off to undetectable realms doesn't help much.

I like MWI and Bruno's FPI idea, but without some testable prediction (not
retrodiction) I don't find them compelling.

Why do you find compelling about the idea that all other superpositions (except for one)
vanish?

It comports with experiment. What do you find compelling about the idea that the unity of
your consciousness is an illusion.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:11 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 5/9/2013 10:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> Von Neumann thought the extra baggage was required to make the model match
> our observations, but Everett later showed that step was unnecessary.  The
> model (free of additional baggage) predicts the same observations as the
> model with it.
>
>
> He showed that IF the wave function separates into orthogonal components
> (an irreversible process) then FPI explains the observations.  But the
> model says it never does that; it only approximates that, in certain bases.
>

Could you explain this?  I don't understand in what sense the Schrodinger
equation can only approximate itself?

>   Decoherence theory tries to fill in the process by which this occurs
> give a statistical mechanics type account of irreversibility.
>

It gives an account of the appearance of an "irreversible wave-function
collapse" without their having to be one.  It is derived entirely from the
theory of QM and is not an extra postulate.

>   But you could also take the epistemological interpretation of Peres and
> Fuchs instead of inventing other worlds just to save the determinism of an
> equation.
>

The other worlds are a required element of the theory, unless you deny the
reality of superposition.  I think Everett's thought experiment explains
the situation the best:

Imagine a box with an observe in it who will be measuring the state of a
particle and writing the result in a notebook.  This box is entirely sealed
off from the external world such that the internal result of the experiment
remains in a superposition until it is opened.  Now a second, external
observer models the entire evolution of this box over time, including
before and after the observer inside measures the state of the particle and
records the result in a notebook.  He determines the superposition of all
the possible handwritings of all the possible results in the notebook.  Is
the internal observer not conscious in each of the various superpositions
resulting from the measurement?

Epistemological interpretations seem to deny there is any fundamental
reality at all, aside from what we can see and learn, which to me seems
like a dead end in the search for truth.

>   I like MWI and Bruno's FPI idea, but without some testable prediction
> (not retrodiction) I don't find them compelling.
>

Why do you find compelling about the idea that all other superpositions
(except for one) vanish?

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?


On 5/9/2013 10:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Von Neumann thought the extra baggage was required to make the model match our 
observations, but Everett later showed that step was unnecessary.  The model (free of 
additional baggage) predicts the same observations as the model with it.


He showed that IF the wave function separates into orthogonal components (an irreversible 
process) then FPI explains the observations.  But the model says it never does that; it 
only approximates that, in certain bases.  Decoherence theory tries to fill in the process 
by which this occurs give a statistical mechanics type account of irreversibility.  But 
you could also take the epistemological interpretation of Peres and Fuchs instead of 
inventing other worlds just to save the determinism of an equation.  I like MWI and 
Bruno's FPI idea, but without some testable prediction (not retrodiction) I don't find 
them compelling.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-09 Thread John Clark

On Thu, May 9, 2013  Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> Roulette wheels are not random, they can be modeled as Newtonian
> mechanisms, exactly like cuckoo clocks.
>

No they are not exactly alike. A tiny change in a cuckoo clock causes a
tiny change in the clock's performance, but a tiny change in the roulette
wheel causes a HUGE change in the wheel's performance, and conceivably the
change might be so small that we're talking about a quantum event. And if
you don't like roulette then a electronic circuit that detects shot noise
or a Geiger counter.

> > You can accept that true randomness is fundamental, and thus, not
> explainable

I can accept that it is conceivable. I do not think that nature is
obligated to arrange things in such a way that human beings can always
understand them.

> but the MWI and Bruno's FPI provide a compelling contrary hypothesis.

I like the MWI because it doesn't have to explain what a observer or a
observation is not because it gets rid of randomness.  Personally I don't
see much difference between saying something happened for no cause and
saying something happened for a cause that can't ever be detected even in
theory. And to tell you the truth I can't keep up with Bruno's homemade
acronyms and terms and have quite forgotten what "FPI" even stands for.

And speaking of profound mysteries, why isn't acronym a acronym? Hey wait a
minute it is!  Arranged Chronological Reassignment Of Names You Manipulate;
acronym for short.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?


On 5/9/2013 9:11 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

What problem is that? I don't understand why randomness is a bigger physical
problem than determinism, both cuckoo clocks and roulette wheels  coexist
peacefully in our world.

Roulette wheels are not random, they can be modeled as Newtonian
mechanisms, exactly like cuckoo clocks. They have just been designed
in a way to make prediction of the outcome very hard for humans
(because one would have to know the precise force with which the
roulette was spinned, the precise moment when the ball was dropped,
and so on and so on). This is different from the kind of randomness
that you get from the double-slit experiment. We had never met true
randomness before the experiments that lead to QM, which are rather
new in human experience. That is weird. You can accept that true
randomness is fundamental, and thus, not explainable, but the MWI and
Bruno's FPI provide a compelling contrary hypothesis.


The only thing "compelling" about it is that it avoids randomness (by hiding the 
determinism where it can't be seen).  That's why I keep hoping for some testable 
prediction from these theories - that would be compelling.


Brent


The scientific
thing to do is to consider well defined hypothesis that could explain
something that we have no explanation for at the moment. Right?



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On 5/9/2013 7:49 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

I was thinking to quantum erasure experiments. We can make a wave
>>"collapse", by some measurement, and still make it cohere again, by erasing
>>the memory of the experience/the result of the experiment. If observation
>>did collapse or select irreversibly, that could not make sense.

>
>
>But it isn't a "measurement" if you can make it cohere again.  A measurement
>is irreversbile, "erasing" means reversing the process that, if it were not
>erased could have become a measurement.

But this implies that a human observer is needed for something to be a
measurement. The fact that the outcome of the measurement is
physically available in the universe is not enough.

No, it doesn't imply that.  Being available in enough, c.f. buckyball interference 
experiments.

Would you agree that, knowing the outcome of the quantum eraser
experiment, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that observation by
a conscious entity is necessary to define a quantum state?

No.  But I'm not a fan of the Copenhagen interpretation because it implies the Heisenberg 
cut is physical, yet is determined by the experimenter.

The Copenhagen interpretation seems to require two magic steps
(consciousness causing wave collapse and "pure randomness"). It seems
to be a more extraordinary claim than the MWI.

Also, CI + the quantum eraser experiment implies that stuff doesn't
exist when no one is looking. Am I wrong (honestly asking)?

I think you are assuming that there are only two possible QM interpretations: Copenhagen 
and MWI.  There is also the epistemological interpretation; the wave function is just our 
description of the system and so it changes when we get new information (i.e. a 
measurment).  There is also decoherence theory, which attempts to described the physical 
process of MWI.  And there are several variants of MWI.  And Mermin's "relations without 
relata".  As well Bohm's guide waves and some actual collapse theories.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 11:14 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 5/9/2013 2:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> On 08 May 2013, at 22:46, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>  On 5/8/2013 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>

 On 08 May 2013, at 11:56, Telmo Menezes wrote:

  On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 07 May 2013, at 20:55, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 6, 2013  John Mikes  wrote:
>>
>>  there is no random decay or anything else

>>>
>>
>> There is no way you can deduce that from pure reason and the
>> experimental
>> evidence strongly indicates that  you are wrong about that.
>>
>>  only things that happen without our - so far - accessed explanation.

>>>
>>
>> And thanks to experiments involving Bell's inequality we know for a
>> fact
>> that if apparently random things happen for a reason they can't be
>> local
>> reasons; for example the reason the coin came up heads right now is
>> because
>> a billion years in the FUTURE a butterfly like creature on a planet
>> in the
>> Andromeda Galaxy flapped it's wings twice instead of 3 times.
>>
>>
>>
> Hi Bruno,
>
>  You assume the collapse of the wave. There are experimental evidences
>> against it,
>>
>
> Could you elaborate?
>

 I was thinking to quantum erasure experiments. We can make a wave
 "collapse", by some measurement, and still make it cohere again, by erasing
 the memory of the experience/the result of the experiment. If observation
 did collapse or select irreversibly, that could not make sense.

>>>
>>> But it isn't a "measurement" if you can make it cohere again.  A
>>> measurement is irreversbile, "erasing" means reversing the process that, if
>>> it were not erased could have become a measurement.
>>>
>>
>> You beg the question. Nothing is irreversible.
>>
>
> On the contrary it is you who are begging the question.  You are claiming
> that measurements are reversible because your theory says they are
> reversible, even though in practice they are not, and this shows your
> theory is right.
>
>
>  For practical reason macroscopic measurement seems irreversible, as we
>> cannot track the leaking of information, and can no more practically erase
>> it. Quantum erasure algorithm would not work if measurement were
>> irreversible, and what such local measurement, where we can still erase the
>> information and get back to coherence shows that the collapse is not well
>> defined. Of course Einstein already shows that the collapse cannot be
>> covariant, and Bohr acknowledged that it cannot be a physical event, but
>> then why to introduce it to begin with (except the wanting to be unique).
>>
>
> Yes, it's a mathematical operation.  In decoherence theory, it's taking a
> trace.  I'm quite willing to entertain the idea of FPI, but it's till
> randomness.
>
> Brent
>
>
My preference for the MWI has nothing to do with a personal preference for
determinism or indeterminism.  I prefer MWI because it is a literal reading
of the equations, free of any additional of baggage.

Von Neumann thought the extra baggage was required to make the model match
our observations, but Everett later showed that step was unnecessary.  The
model (free of additional baggage) predicts the same observations as the
model with it.   Since it has been shown to be unnecessary let's dispense
with it already!

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?


On 5/9/2013 2:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 08 May 2013, at 22:46, meekerdb wrote:


On 5/8/2013 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 08 May 2013, at 11:56, Telmo Menezes wrote:


On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:


On 07 May 2013, at 20:55, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, May 6, 2013  John Mikes  wrote:


there is no random decay or anything else



There is no way you can deduce that from pure reason and the experimental
evidence strongly indicates that  you are wrong about that.


only things that happen without our - so far - accessed explanation.



And thanks to experiments involving Bell's inequality we know for a fact
that if apparently random things happen for a reason they can't be local
reasons; for example the reason the coin came up heads right now is because
a billion years in the FUTURE a butterfly like creature on a planet in the
Andromeda Galaxy flapped it's wings twice instead of 3 times.




Hi Bruno,


You assume the collapse of the wave. There are experimental evidences
against it,


Could you elaborate?


I was thinking to quantum erasure experiments. We can make a wave "collapse", by some 
measurement, and still make it cohere again, by erasing the memory of the 
experience/the result of the experiment. If observation did collapse or select 
irreversibly, that could not make sense.


But it isn't a "measurement" if you can make it cohere again.  A measurement is 
irreversbile, "erasing" means reversing the process that, if it were not erased could 
have become a measurement.


You beg the question. Nothing is irreversible. 


On the contrary it is you who are begging the question.  You are claiming that 
measurements are reversible because your theory says they are reversible, even though in 
practice they are not, and this shows your theory is right.


For practical reason macroscopic measurement seems irreversible, as we cannot track the 
leaking of information, and can no more practically erase it. Quantum erasure algorithm 
would not work if measurement were irreversible, and what such local measurement, where 
we can still erase the information and get back to coherence shows that the collapse is 
not well defined. Of course Einstein already shows that the collapse cannot be 
covariant, and Bohr acknowledged that it cannot be a physical event, but then why to 
introduce it to begin with (except the wanting to be unique).


Yes, it's a mathematical operation.  In decoherence theory, it's taking a trace.  I'm 
quite willing to entertain the idea of FPI, but it's till randomness.


Brent










Quantum computation algorithm also support the relative "physical reality" of the 
superposition states.


The collapse is not even an axiom. It is a meta-axiom saying 'don't listen to the 
theory when she talk about you or your body. She get absolutelly crazy, like if we 
could be ourself in superposiion states Ha ha ha!".


Without the Born axiom there'd be no way to related QM to actual observations.  
According to the Schrodinger equation nothing every really happens.



Nothing or everything happens, with the SWE or with arithmetic. Then it is a matter of 
listening and studying the memory content of the subsystem inside. They do believe 
things happen, and they are right.
And the Born axioms can be extracted from SWE + COMP (+ FPI). Only problem: the logic 
asks to derive the SWE too, and this works well up to now.


Bruno







Brent








and there are no experimental evidence of any randomness other
than some FPI, on the branch of a universal wave, or, as we need with comp,
on arithmetic.
To believe in events without cause or reason is ... pseudo-religion. It is a
belief in something without any evidences, to introduce unsolvable problem
on purpose.


This is a strong argument in favor of theories like comp, or at least
some form of many-worlds. "True randomness" strikes me as an euphemism
for magic.


I suspect you mean "true physical randomness", or a 3p randomness, but this still 
exist mathematically, and experimentally, like when splitting beams of photons are 
observed, of course it is only first person indeterminacy on the wave.


Betting on "true randomness" for an observed reality is like asserting "don't ask for 
more explanation".


But from inside we might be confronted with some true randomness, like with the 
quantum beams.


Bruno







Telmo.


Bruno







John K Clark


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything 
List" gr

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-09 Thread Telmo Menezes

> What problem is that? I don't understand why randomness is a bigger physical
> problem than determinism, both cuckoo clocks and roulette wheels  coexist
> peacefully in our world.

Roulette wheels are not random, they can be modeled as Newtonian
mechanisms, exactly like cuckoo clocks. They have just been designed
in a way to make prediction of the outcome very hard for humans
(because one would have to know the precise force with which the
roulette was spinned, the precise moment when the ball was dropped,
and so on and so on). This is different from the kind of randomness
that you get from the double-slit experiment. We had never met true
randomness before the experiments that lead to QM, which are rather
new in human experience. That is weird. You can accept that true
randomness is fundamental, and thus, not explainable, but the MWI and
Bruno's FPI provide a compelling contrary hypothesis. The scientific
thing to do is to consider well defined hypothesis that could explain
something that we have no explanation for at the moment. Right?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?