Re: Re: multiverses and quantum computers
Hi Bruno Marchal Again you are miscontruing Plato's idea or form, which is potential, as matter, which is actual. Not only that, but matter must be created by a creator in Platonism. So altogether we have form, matter, and creator. According to this, quanta are not physical states, they are just mathematical constructions, ideas or blueprints. They only become physical when the wavicle (what Plato called an idea or form) collapses and becomes a particle or whatever. As verification, here's an account of Plato's version of creation taken from the Timeaus: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/#PlaPuz The Timaeus is also famous for its account of the creation of the universe by the Demiurge [a creator, ie collapser of the wavicles]. Unlike the creation by the God of medieval theologians, Plato抯 Demiurge does not create ex nihilo, but rather orders the cosmos out of chaotic elemental matter, imitating the eternal Forms [or quanta or wavicles]. Plato takes the four elements, fire, air, water, and earth (which Plato proclaims to be composed of various aggregates of triangles [or wavicles, forms or quanta] ), making various compounds of these into what he calls the Body of the Universe [matter]. Of all of Plato抯 works, the Timaeus provides the most detailed conjectures in the areas we now regard as the natural sciences: physics, astronomy, chemistry, and biology. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-04, 11:43:07 Subject: Re: multiverses and quantum computers On 01 Feb 2013, at 19:26, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno, I can't see that superposition of states is any more magical in one universe than, say, multiple roots to an equation, or imaginary numbers. What matters is whether they are true states or not. And truth is not magical. Agreed. But truth becomes magical when you require that a true state has to be a physical state. There are numbers, and just by virtue of obeying the laws of addition and multiplication, due to an intrinsic misunderstanding between the additive realm and the multiplicative realm, universal numbers cannot not exist and they introduced an incredible mess in platonia. I agree that the superposition of states is no more magical than the many roots of an equation. Bt there is a difference, which is that if comp is true, what we take as physical, both the particles and their superposition states, comes from an earlier (arithmetically earlier, with shorter proofs) from the fact that each first person determined by a relative universal numbers states, is associated to all computations going through that states. So particles and their superposition are entirely phenomenal, but in stable and sharable fashion, apparently, for the measure-winning universal numbers. A brain is a Hubble telescope, in arithmetic, to explore the unboundable richness of arithmetic when seen from inside, from many possible perspectives. We must be humble. Today, as far as we know, assuming comp, the physical universe might still be only a failed attempt by God to solve a fourth degree diophantine polynomials. But OK, the resemblance with Plotinus' system suggests it can also be more than that. There are tuns of open problems. The weakness of comp, is that the interesting question, using the simplest definitions, leads to very hard problem in math. But the contrary would have been astonishing. There is no reason that the theological reality is simple, especially with a brain which seems to filter a part of the truth, for apparently both logical and evolution based reason. And there is an abyss of complexity between those two kind of reasons. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-01, 03:46:32 Subject: Re: multiverses and quantum computers Hi Bruno, On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge, a quantum has infinite paths available between points A and B without invoking another universe. Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on some superposition of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different of other universes? The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on a same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea of a multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that making QM consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking. It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity. People overlook the magical step because they are more confortable with the resulting model. Bruno So no problem. - Receiving the following
Re: multiverses and quantum computers
On 04 Feb 2013, at 23:21, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Feb 2013, at 11:28, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Feb 2013, at 09:46, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Bruno, On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge, a quantum has infinite paths available between points A and B without invoking another universe. Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on some superposition of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different of other universes? The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on a same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea of a multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that making QM consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking. OK. It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity. People overlook the magical step because they are more confortable with the resulting model. Totally OK. UDA and MGA are supposed to make that magic step quite palatable. But UDA and MGA propose that consciousness supervenes on neural states, not that it emerges or is caused by them, correct? UDA (including MGA = step 8) shows that comp (I can survive a digital brain transplant) entails that eventually the brains and bodies supervene on sequences of computational states, which are actually arithmetical relation. (having chosen arithmetic for the ontology, anything Turing universal theorey will do). MGA throws out the physical supervenience thesis: the idea that consciousness relies on this or that (physical or not) implementations of a computations. Consciousness is associated to all computation in arithmetic. This can be related with the first person indeterminacy. Ok, I'm more familiar with the UDA than the MGA. If you are interested, I will come back on this soon. Perhaps not on this list(*). I will tell here when I will come back on MGA on the FOAR list. (*) MGA has already been discussed on this list: http://old.nabble.com/MGA-1-td20566948.html Bruno Bruno Naturalism used magic without saying, but our brains is gifted for this, and that makes sense in the evolutive struggle of life. I think we agree, Bruno Bruno So no problem. - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-31, 08:13:30 Subject: Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of quantum computers come from? On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes IMHO more than one universe is unjustified. - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-30, 12:10:08 Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number, whatever it is? On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite universes. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33 Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi, 牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion! http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295 About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Francisco Jos Soler Gil, Manuel Alfonseca (Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2)) This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite number of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition of histories in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan. -- Onward! Stephen DreamMail - The first mail software supporting source tracking www.dreammail.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Re: multiverses and quantum computers
On 05 Feb 2013, at 13:29, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Again you are miscontruing Plato's idea or form, which is potential, as matter, which is actual. Not only that, but matter must be created by a creator in Platonism. So altogether we have form, matter, and creator. According to this, quanta are not physical states, they are just mathematical constructions, ideas or blueprints. They only become physical when the wavicle (what Plato called an idea or form) collapses and becomes a particle or whatever. As verification, here's an account of Plato's version of creation taken from the Timeaus: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/#PlaPuz The Timaeus is also famous for its account of the creation of the universe by the Demiurge [a creator, ie collapser of the wavicles]. Unlike the creation by the God of medieval theologians, Plato’s Demiurge does not create ex nihilo, but rather orders the cosmos out of chaotic elemental matter, imitating the eternal Forms [or quanta or wavicles]. Plato takes the four elements, fire, air, water, and earth (which Plato proclaims to be composed of various aggregates of triangles [or wavicles, forms or quanta] ), making various compounds of these into what he calls the Body of the Universe [matter]. Of all of Plato’s works, the Timaeus provides the most detailed conjectures in the areas we now regard as the natural sciences: physics, astronomy, chemistry, and biology. That's an Aristotelian account of Plato. It is more complex than that. The Timaeus, should be compensated with the Parmenides, and some synthesis should be tried. Then this is what Plotinus did, and that is why, when I mention Plato, I am in the line with the neo-platonists. I propose bridges (including 'testable one) between Plato, computer science and physics. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-04, 11:43:07 Subject: Re: multiverses and quantum computers On 01 Feb 2013, at 19:26, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno, I can't see that superposition of states is any more magical in one universe than, say, multiple roots to an equation, or imaginary numbers. What matters is whether they are true states or not. And truth is not magical. Agreed. But truth becomes magical when you require that a true state has to be a physical state. There are numbers, and just by virtue of obeying the laws of addition and multiplication, due to an intrinsic misunderstanding between the additive realm and the multiplicative realm, universal numbers cannot not exist and they introduced an incredible mess in platonia. I agree that the superposition of states is no more magical than the many roots of an equation. Bt there is a difference, which is that if comp is true, what we take as physical, both the particles and their superposition states, comes from an earlier (arithmetically earlier, with shorter proofs) from the fact that each first person determined by a relative universal numbers states, is associated to all computations going through that states. So particles and their superposition are entirely phenomenal, but in stable and sharable fashion, apparently, for the measure-winning universal numbers. A brain is a Hubble telescope, in arithmetic, to explore the unboundable richness of arithmetic when seen from inside, from many possible perspectives. We must be humble. Today, as far as we know, assuming comp, the physical universe might still be only a failed attempt by God to solve a fourth degree diophantine polynomials. But OK, the resemblance with Plotinus' system suggests it can also be more than that. There are tuns of open problems. The weakness of comp, is that the interesting question, using the simplest definitions, leads to very hard problem in math. But the contrary would have been astonishing. There is no reason that the theological reality is simple, especially with a brain which seems to filter a part of the truth, for apparently both logical and evolution based reason. And there is an abyss of complexity between those two kind of reasons. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-01, 03:46:32 Subject: Re: multiverses and quantum computers Hi Bruno, On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge, a quantum has infinite paths available between points A and B without invoking another universe. Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on some superposition of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different of other universes? The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition
Re: multiverses and quantum computers
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Feb 2013, at 23:21, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Feb 2013, at 11:28, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Feb 2013, at 09:46, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Bruno, On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.bewrote: On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge, a quantum has infinite paths available between points A and B without invoking another universe. Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on some superposition of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different of other universes? The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on a same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea of a multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that making QM consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking. OK. It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity. People overlook the magical step because they are more confortable with the resulting model. Totally OK. UDA and MGA are supposed to make that magic step quite palatable. But UDA and MGA propose that consciousness supervenes on neural states, not that it emerges or is caused by them, correct? UDA (including MGA = step 8) shows that comp (I can survive a digital brain transplant) entails that eventually the brains and bodies supervene on sequences of computational states, which are actually arithmetical relation. (having chosen arithmetic for the ontology, anything Turing universal theorey will do). MGA throws out the physical supervenience thesis: the idea that consciousness relies on this or that (physical or not) implementations of a computations. Consciousness is associated to all computation in arithmetic. This can be related with the first person indeterminacy. Ok, I'm more familiar with the UDA than the MGA. If you are interested, I will come back on this soon. Perhaps not on this list(*). I will tell here when I will come back on MGA on the FOAR list. I am, cool. (*) MGA has already been discussed on this list: http://old.nabble.com/MGA-1-td20566948.html I think I was there around that time, but possibly stressing with writing my thesis. Bruno Bruno Naturalism used magic without saying, but our brains is gifted for this, and that makes sense in the evolutive struggle of life. I think we agree, Bruno Bruno So no problem. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-31, 08:13:30 *Subject:* Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of quantum computers come from? On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: Hi Telmo Menezes IMHO more than one universe is unjustified. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:10:08 *Subject:* Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number, whatever it is? On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: Hi Stephen P. King It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite universes. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33 *Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi, 牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion! http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295 About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Francisco Jos Soler Gilhttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1 , Manuel Alfonsecahttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1 (Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2)) This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite number of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of these
Re: multiverses and quantum computers
On 01 Feb 2013, at 19:26, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno, I can't see that superposition of states is any more magical in one universe than, say, multiple roots to an equation, or imaginary numbers. What matters is whether they are true states or not. And truth is not magical. Agreed. But truth becomes magical when you require that a true state has to be a physical state. There are numbers, and just by virtue of obeying the laws of addition and multiplication, due to an intrinsic misunderstanding between the additive realm and the multiplicative realm, universal numbers cannot not exist and they introduced an incredible mess in platonia. I agree that the superposition of states is no more magical than the many roots of an equation. Bt there is a difference, which is that if comp is true, what we take as physical, both the particles and their superposition states, comes from an earlier (arithmetically earlier, with shorter proofs) from the fact that each first person determined by a relative universal numbers states, is associated to all computations going through that states. So particles and their superposition are entirely phenomenal, but in stable and sharable fashion, apparently, for the measure-winning universal numbers. A brain is a Hubble telescope, in arithmetic, to explore the unboundable richness of arithmetic when seen from inside, from many possible perspectives. We must be humble. Today, as far as we know, assuming comp, the physical universe might still be only a failed attempt by God to solve a fourth degree diophantine polynomials. But OK, the resemblance with Plotinus' system suggests it can also be more than that. There are tuns of open problems. The weakness of comp, is that the interesting question, using the simplest definitions, leads to very hard problem in math. But the contrary would have been astonishing. There is no reason that the theological reality is simple, especially with a brain which seems to filter a part of the truth, for apparently both logical and evolution based reason. And there is an abyss of complexity between those two kind of reasons. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-01, 03:46:32 Subject: Re: multiverses and quantum computers Hi Bruno, On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge, a quantum has infinite paths available between points A and B without invoking another universe. Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on some superposition of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different of other universes? The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on a same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea of a multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that making QM consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking. It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity. People overlook the magical step because they are more confortable with the resulting model. Bruno So no problem. - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-31, 08:13:30 Subject: Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of quantum computers come from? On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes IMHO more than one universe is unjustified. - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-30, 12:10:08 Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number, whatever it is? On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite universes. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33 Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi, 牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion! http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295 About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Francisco Jos Soler Gil, Manuel Alfonseca (Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2)) This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both
Re: multiverses and quantum computers
On 02 Feb 2013, at 11:28, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Feb 2013, at 09:46, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Bruno, On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge, a quantum has infinite paths available between points A and B without invoking another universe. Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on some superposition of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different of other universes? The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on a same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea of a multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that making QM consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking. OK. It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity. People overlook the magical step because they are more confortable with the resulting model. Totally OK. UDA and MGA are supposed to make that magic step quite palatable. But UDA and MGA propose that consciousness supervenes on neural states, not that it emerges or is caused by them, correct? UDA (including MGA = step 8) shows that comp (I can survive a digital brain transplant) entails that eventually the brains and bodies supervene on sequences of computational states, which are actually arithmetical relation. (having chosen arithmetic for the ontology, anything Turing universal theorey will do). MGA throws out the physical supervenience thesis: the idea that consciousness relies on this or that (physical or not) implementations of a computations. Consciousness is associated to all computation in arithmetic. This can be related with the first person indeterminacy. Bruno Naturalism used magic without saying, but our brains is gifted for this, and that makes sense in the evolutive struggle of life. I think we agree, Bruno Bruno So no problem. - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-31, 08:13:30 Subject: Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of quantum computers come from? On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes IMHO more than one universe is unjustified. - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-30, 12:10:08 Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number, whatever it is? On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite universes. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33 Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi, 牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion! http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295 About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Francisco Jos Soler Gil, Manuel Alfonseca (Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2)) This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite number of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition of histories in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan. -- Onward! Stephen DreamMail - The first mail software supporting source tracking www.dreammail.org -- 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
Re: multiverses and quantum computers
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Feb 2013, at 11:28, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Feb 2013, at 09:46, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Bruno, On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge, a quantum has infinite paths available between points A and B without invoking another universe. Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on some superposition of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different of other universes? The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on a same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea of a multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that making QM consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking. OK. It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity. People overlook the magical step because they are more confortable with the resulting model. Totally OK. UDA and MGA are supposed to make that magic step quite palatable. But UDA and MGA propose that consciousness supervenes on neural states, not that it emerges or is caused by them, correct? UDA (including MGA = step 8) shows that comp (I can survive a digital brain transplant) entails that eventually the brains and bodies supervene on sequences of computational states, which are actually arithmetical relation. (having chosen arithmetic for the ontology, anything Turing universal theorey will do). MGA throws out the physical supervenience thesis: the idea that consciousness relies on this or that (physical or not) implementations of a computations. Consciousness is associated to all computation in arithmetic. This can be related with the first person indeterminacy. Ok, I'm more familiar with the UDA than the MGA. Bruno Naturalism used magic without saying, but our brains is gifted for this, and that makes sense in the evolutive struggle of life. I think we agree, Bruno Bruno So no problem. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-31, 08:13:30 *Subject:* Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of quantum computers come from? On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: Hi Telmo Menezes IMHO more than one universe is unjustified. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:10:08 *Subject:* Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number, whatever it is? On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: Hi Stephen P. King It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite universes. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33 *Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi, 牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion! http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295 About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Francisco Jos Soler Gilhttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1 , Manuel Alfonsecahttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1 (Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2)) This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite number of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition of histories in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan. -- Onward! Stephen *DreamMail* - The first mail software supporting source tracking www.dreammail.org -- You
Re: multiverses and quantum computers
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Feb 2013, at 09:46, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Bruno, On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge, a quantum has infinite paths available between points A and B without invoking another universe. Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on some superposition of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different of other universes? The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on a same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea of a multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that making QM consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking. OK. It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity. People overlook the magical step because they are more confortable with the resulting model. Totally OK. UDA and MGA are supposed to make that magic step quite palatable. But UDA and MGA propose that consciousness supervenes on neural states, not that it emerges or is caused by them, correct? Naturalism used magic without saying, but our brains is gifted for this, and that makes sense in the evolutive struggle of life. I think we agree, Bruno Bruno So no problem. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-31, 08:13:30 *Subject:* Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of quantum computers come from? On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: Hi Telmo Menezes IMHO more than one universe is unjustified. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:10:08 *Subject:* Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number, whatever it is? On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: Hi Stephen P. King It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite universes. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33 *Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi, 牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion! http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295 About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Francisco Jos Soler Gilhttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1 , Manuel Alfonsecahttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1 (Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2)) This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite number of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition of histories in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan. -- Onward! Stephen *DreamMail* - The first mail software supporting source tracking www.dreammail.org -- 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
Re: multiverses and quantum computers
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 8:39 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/1/2013 12:46 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Bruno, On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge, a quantum has infinite paths available between points A and B without invoking another universe. Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on some superposition of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different of other universes? The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on a same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea of a multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that making QM consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking. I don't think that's true. There are ways of interpreting QM that are consistent and not magical. It's just that they require accepting that somethings happen and some don't. It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity. But we don't know of any consciousness that doesn't emerge from neural activity Can you describe the mechanism by which that happens? I'm willing to accept a toy model and overlook a lot of things, just give me something. and we don't know of any intelligence that doesn't emerge from the physical processing of information. True, but that's a different matter. Consciousness is not a requirement for intelligence. Or if it is it must come through some mysterious means, because we know how to build intelligent machines but we don't know how to build conscious ones. Brent People overlook the magical step because they are more confortable with the resulting model. Bruno So no problem. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-31, 08:13:30 *Subject:* Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of quantum computers come from? On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: Hi Telmo Menezes IMHO more than one universe is unjustified. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:10:08 *Subject:* Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number, whatever it is? On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: Hi Stephen P. King It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite universes. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33 *Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi, 牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion! http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295 About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Francisco Jos Soler Gilhttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1 , Manuel Alfonsecahttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1 (Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2)) This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite number of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition of histories in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan. -- Onward! Stephen *DreamMail* - The first mail software supporting source tracking www.dreammail.org -- 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
Re: multiverses and quantum computers
On Saturday, February 2, 2013 2:39:53 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/1/2013 12:46 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Bruno, On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript: wrote: On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge, a quantum has infinite paths available between points A and B without invoking another universe. Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on some superposition of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different of other universes? The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on a same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea of a multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that making QM consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking. I don't think that's true. There are ways of interpreting QM that are consistent and not magical. It's just that they require accepting that somethings happen and some don't. It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity. But we don't know of any consciousness that doesn't emerge from neural activity and we don't know of any intelligence that doesn't emerge from the physical processing of information. Where does the consciousness that emerges from neural activity emerge from though? Is there any physical system that isn't 'processing information' on some scale of millennia or nanoseconds? If we understand that the nature of consciousness is specifically to provide a fisheye lens ontology for a given subject, then it makes perfect sense that this distortion would prevent us from seeing subjectivity in the periphery of our lens, so to speak, where structures are too large or too small, too slow or too fast, too unfamiliar or too distant for us to identify with personally, socially, zoologically, or biologically. I suggest that this is a quantized scale which maps to our capacity to recognize and directly relate to non-human experiences. For this reason however, functionalism actually fails, contrary to what most people will assume. It is because we are assembling machines in total ignorance of natural non-human awareness, that our hamfisted attempts have lead us only haltingly further on the road to either Frankenstein or HAL. By isolating only the tweeter range of human privacy (cognitive awareness), without any of the emotional bass or somatic sub-woofer, we can't access the full spectrum which is required to begin to access human quality personhood. Putting together sentences is not thinking. Matching up queries with responses is not understanding. Craig Brent People overlook the magical step because they are more confortable with the resulting model. Bruno So no problem. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Telmo Menezes javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-31, 08:13:30 *Subject:* Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of quantum computers come from? On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes IMHO more than one universe is unjustified. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Telmo Menezes javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:10:08 *Subject:* Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number, whatever it is? On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: Hi Stephen P. King It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite universes. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33 *Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi, 牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion! http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295 About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Francisco Jos Soler Gilhttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1 , Manuel Alfonsecahttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1 (Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2)) This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and
Re: multiverses and quantum computers
On 2/2/2013 2:43 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 8:39 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/1/2013 12:46 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Bruno, On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge, a quantum has infinite paths available between points A and B without invoking another universe. Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on some superposition of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different of other universes? The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on a same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea of a multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that making QM consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking. I don't think that's true. There are ways of interpreting QM that are consistent and not magical. It's just that they require accepting that somethings happen and some don't. It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity. But we don't know of any consciousness that doesn't emerge from neural activity Can you describe the mechanism by which that happens? It's not mechanical, so I doubt that there is a 'mechanistic' explanation. It's similar to Newton's explanation of gravity. It was objected at the time that he gave no explanation of how gravity pushed and pulled on planets. But when you think carefully about them you realize that scientific theories are mathematical models that predict things, but in general they don't have 'mechanisms' that fit our anthropomorphic idea of push and pull, cause and effect. What is the 'mechanism' of a projection operator in quantum mechanics, or of the Schrodinger equation. It may well be that consciousness is just how a certain kind of physical information processing 'feels' from the inside. I'm willing to accept a toy model and overlook a lot of things, just give me something. What I can give is empirical evidence and operational defintions. An operational definition of consciousness is responding to accumulated information in ways that are intelligent/purposeful but unpredictable. and we don't know of any intelligence that doesn't emerge from the physical processing of information. True, but that's a different matter. Consciousness is not a requirement for intelligence. How do you know that? I think it likely that consciousness, of some kind, always accompanies intelligence of a sufficiently high level - they kind we think of as learning from experience and being able to set multi-level goals. Or if it is it must come through some mysterious means, because we know how to build intelligent machines but we don't know how to build conscious ones. How do you know that? How would you know that a robot you built with intelligent behavior was not conscious? 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: multiverses and quantum computers
Hi Bruno, On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge, a quantum has infinite paths available between points A and B without invoking another universe. Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on some superposition of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different of other universes? The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on a same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea of a multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that making QM consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking. It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity. People overlook the magical step because they are more confortable with the resulting model. Bruno So no problem. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-31, 08:13:30 *Subject:* Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of quantum computers come from? On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes IMHO more than one universe is unjustified. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:10:08 *Subject:* Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number, whatever it is? On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: Hi Stephen P. King It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite universes. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33 *Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi, 牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion! http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295 About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Francisco Jos Soler Gilhttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1 , Manuel Alfonsecahttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1 (Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2)) This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite number of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition of histories in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan. -- Onward! Stephen *DreamMail* - The first mail software supporting source tracking www.dreammail.org -- 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. -- 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
Re: multiverses and quantum computers
On 01 Feb 2013, at 09:46, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Bruno, On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge, a quantum has infinite paths available between points A and B without invoking another universe. Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on some superposition of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different of other universes? The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on a same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea of a multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that making QM consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking. OK. It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity. People overlook the magical step because they are more confortable with the resulting model. Totally OK. UDA and MGA are supposed to make that magic step quite palatable. Naturalism used magic without saying, but our brains is gifted for this, and that makes sense in the evolutive struggle of life. I think we agree, Bruno Bruno So no problem. - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-31, 08:13:30 Subject: Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of quantum computers come from? On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes IMHO more than one universe is unjustified. - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-30, 12:10:08 Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number, whatever it is? On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite universes. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33 Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi, 牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion! http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295 About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Francisco Jos Soler Gil, Manuel Alfonseca (Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2)) This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite number of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition of histories in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan. -- Onward! Stephen DreamMail - The first mail software supporting source tracking www.dreammail.org -- 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. -- 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. -- 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. -- You received this message
Re: Re: multiverses and quantum computers
Hi Bruno Marchal Shouldn't it be multiwavicles rather than a multiverse ? Occam's razor suggests that. Why ? Mathematics is nonphysical, so I would think that superposition of states is also nonphysical, thus needing no other physical universe to be referred to than the one it was originally compounded for. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-01, 12:11:55 Subject: Re: multiverses and quantum computers On 01 Feb 2013, at 09:46, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Bruno, On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge, a quantum has infinite paths available between points A and B without invoking another universe. Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on some superposition of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different of other universes? The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on a same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea of a multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that making QM consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking. OK. It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity. People overlook the magical step because they are more confortable with the resulting model. Totally OK. UDA and MGA are supposed to make that magic step quite palatable. Naturalism used magic without saying, but our brains is gifted for this, and that makes sense in the evolutive struggle of life. I think we agree, Bruno Bruno So no problem. - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-31, 08:13:30 Subject: Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of quantum computers come from? On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes IMHO more than one universe is unjustified. - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-30, 12:10:08 Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number, whatever it is? On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite universes. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33 Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi, ? I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion! http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295 About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Francisco Jos Soler Gil, Manuel Alfonseca (Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2)) This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite number of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition of histories in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan. -- Onward! Stephen DreamMail - The first mail software supporting source tracking www.dreammail.org -- 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: Re: multiverses and quantum computers
Hi Bruno, I can't see that superposition of states is any more magical in one universe than, say, multiple roots to an equation, or imaginary numbers. What matters is whether they are true states or not. And truth is not magical. - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-01, 03:46:32 Subject: Re: multiverses and quantum computers Hi Bruno, On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge, a quantum has infinite paths available between points A and B without invoking another universe. Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on some superposition of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different of other universes? The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on a same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea of a multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that making QM consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking. It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity. People overlook the magical step because they are more confortable with the resulting model. Bruno So no problem. - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-31, 08:13:30 Subject: Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of quantum computers come from? On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes IMHO more than one universe is unjustified. - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-30, 12:10:08 Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number, whatever it is? On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite universes. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33 Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi, ? I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion! http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295 About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Francisco Jos Soler Gil, Manuel Alfonseca (Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2)) This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite number of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition of histories in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan. -- Onward! Stephen DreamMail - The first mail software supporting source tracking www.dreammail.org -- 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. -- 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
Re: multiverses and quantum computers
On 2/1/2013 12:46 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Bruno, On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge, a quantum has infinite paths available between points A and B without invoking another universe. Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on some superposition of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different of other universes? The superposition of many computations itself. Superposition of states on a same universe are a bit hard to swallow. I think people reject the idea of a multiverse because it sounds loony, but my understanding is that making QM consistent with a single universe requires magical thinking. I don't think that's true. There are ways of interpreting QM that are consistent and not magical. It's just that they require accepting that somethings happen and some don't. It's the same as saying that consciousness emerges from neural activity. But we don't know of any consciousness that doesn't emerge from neural activity and we don't know of any intelligence that doesn't emerge from the physical processing of information. Brent People overlook the magical step because they are more confortable with the resulting model. Bruno So no problem. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Telmo Menezes mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-31, 08:13:30 *Subject:* Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of quantum computers come from? On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes IMHO more than one universe is unjustified. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Telmo Menezes mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:10:08 *Subject:* Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number, whatever it is? On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite universes. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33 *Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi, 牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion! http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295 About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Francisco Jos Soler Gil http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1,Manuel Alfonseca http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1 (Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2)) This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite number of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition of histories in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be seen rather as
multiverses and quantum computers
Hi Telmo Menezes Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge, a quantum has infinite paths available between points A and B without invoking another universe. So no problem. - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-31, 08:13:30 Subject: Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of quantum computers come from? On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes IMHO more than one universe is unjustified. - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-30, 12:10:08 Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number, whatever it is? On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite universes. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33 Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi, ? I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion! http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295 About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Francisco Jos Soler Gil, Manuel Alfonseca (Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2)) This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite number of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition of histories in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan. -- Onward! Stephen DreamMail - The first mail software supporting source tracking www.dreammail.org -- 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. -- 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. -- 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: multiverses and quantum computers
On 31 Jan 2013, at 15:15, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Perhaps you're right, but to my limited knowledge, a quantum has infinite paths available between points A and B without invoking another universe. Once we are able to use (classical) information obtained in the other quantum paths, like when doing a Fourier transform on some superposition of many computations, like in a quantum computer, what makes them different of other universes? Bruno So no problem. - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-31, 08:13:30 Subject: Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of quantum computers come from? On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes IMHO more than one universe is unjustified. - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-30, 12:10:08 Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi Roger, I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number, whatever it is? On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite universes. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33 Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Hi, 牋 I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion! http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295 About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space Francisco Jos Soler Gil, Manuel Alfonseca (Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2)) This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite number of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition of histories in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan. -- Onward! Stephen DreamMail - The first mail software supporting source tracking www.dreammail.org -- 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. -- 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. -- 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