### Re: Aaronson/Penrose

On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 10:29:05 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 11:17:22 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 30 Aug 2016, at 18:23, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>> >>>

### Re: Aaronson/Penrose

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 11:07:09 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 31 Aug 2016, at 20:30, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 11:17:22 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 30 Aug 2016, at 18:23, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, June

### Re: Aaronson/Penrose

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 11:52:55 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:27 AM, wrote: > >> >> >> On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 11:07:09 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> >>> On 31 Aug 2016, at 20:30, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>>

### Re: Aaronson/Penrose

On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 8:08:12 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 04 Sep 2016, at 20:27, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > Bruno, thank you for a detailed response. Most of it is above my pay > grade, but I will check some of your links and see what I can make of them. > > > OK. >

### Re: Aaronson/Penrose

I understand your pov. It has but one problem. You ignore the elephant in the room; namely, those other worlds or universes necessary for the outcomes not measured in this world to be realized. But you have an out, stated in another posts. They form part of your imagination. Not good enough

### Re: Aaronson/Penrose

On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 4:38:53 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > I understand your pov. It has but one problem. You ignore the elephant in > the room; namely, those other worlds or universes necessary for the > outcomes not measured in this world to be realized. But you have

### Re: Aaronson/Penrose

On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 9:42:36 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 4:38:53 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> I understand your pov. It has but one problem. You ignore the elephant in >> the room; namely, those other worlds or

### Re: Aaronson/Penrose

On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 11:17:22 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 30 Aug 2016, at 18:23, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >> >> On 11/06/2016 3:56 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> > On 10 Jun 2016, at 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:

### Re: Aaronson/Penrose

Bruno, thank you for a detailed response. Most of it is above my pay grade, but I will check some of your links and see what I can make of them. As for the MWI, I have a simple approach. If I went to LV and played a slot machine for a single trial or outcome, and someone asked me what happened

### Re: Re: Aaronson/Penrose

On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote: > > > > Messaggio originale > Da: "Alan Grayson" > Data: 30/08/2016 18.23 > A: "Everything List" > Ogg: Re: Aaronson/Penrose > > Here's an article of interest. FWIW, I

### Re: Aaronson/Penrose

On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 10:22:04 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 7:53:23 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 07 Sep 2016, at 20:06, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 11:16:38 AM UTC-6, Bruno

### Re: Aaronson/Penrose

On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 7:53:23 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 07 Sep 2016, at 20:06, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 11:16:38 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 06 Sep 2016, at 17:42, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On

### Re: Aaronson/Penrose

On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 7:46:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 08 Sep 2016, at 21:43, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 1:15:15 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 08 Sep 2016, at 18:22, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On

### Re: Aaronson/Penrose

On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 7:56:27 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 08 Sep 2016, at 21:43, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 1:15:15 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal

### Re: Aaronson/Penrose

On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 8:35:02 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Alan Grayson > wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal > > wrote: >> >>> >>> On 08 Sep 2016, at 21:43, agrays...@gmail.com

### Re: Aaronson/Penrose

On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 12:02:03 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 10 Sep 2016, at 19:43, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 1:45:56 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 09 Sep 2016, at 19:14, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On

### Re: A question for Bruno

On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 10:50:17 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 10 Sep 2016, at 16:22, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > Hi, > >Is there any consideration of the duration of the period of time of the > moment? Are they assumed to have vanishingly small durations? > > > >

### Re: Aaronson/Penrose

On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 10:38:55 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 09 Sep 2016, at 16:08, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 7:56:27 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal > >

### Re: Aaronson/Penrose

On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 1:15:15 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 08 Sep 2016, at 18:22, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 7:53:23 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 07 Sep 2016, at 20:06, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On

### Re: Aaronson/Penrose

On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 1:45:56 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 09 Sep 2016, at 19:14, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 10:38:55 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 09 Sep 2016, at 16:08, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On

### Re: Aaronson/Penrose

On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 11:43:55 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 1:45:56 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 09 Sep 2016, at 19:14, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 10:38:55 AM UTC-6, Bruno

### Re: Aaronson/Penrose

On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 2:14:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 11 Sep 2016, at 20:48, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 12:02:03 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 10 Sep 2016, at 19:43, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On

### Re: Aaronson/Penrose

On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 4:46:16 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 2:14:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 11 Sep 2016, at 20:48, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 12:02:03 PM UTC-6, Bruno

### Re: Aaronson/Penrose

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 11:00:03 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 06 Sep 2016, at 12:38, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > I understand your pov. It has but one problem. You ignore the elephant in > the room; namely, those other worlds or universes necessary for the > outcomes

### Re: Aaronson/Penrose

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 11:16:38 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 06 Sep 2016, at 17:42, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 4:38:53 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> I understand your pov. It has but one problem. You ignore the

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 11:24:15 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 11:15:33 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:01 AM, wrote: >> >> ​> ​ >>> What is your definition of non-realistic? >>> >> >>

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 11:15:33 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:01 AM, > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> What is your definition of non-realistic? >> > > Nonrealistic means ​when something is not being observed it doesn't exist > in any one

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 12:55:18 PM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 07:33:12AM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 7:51:09 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 15 Nov 2017, at 00:17,

### Re: David Bohm: Thought as a System

On Friday, September 6, 2013 at 2:53:10 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > On 9/6/2013 1:02 PM, John Mikes wrote: > > Evgeniy, it was a while ago when I read (and enjoyed) David Bohm. > Since then I modified many of my ideas and included 'newer' ideas into > them. I cannot resort to ancient (?)

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 2:37:02 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/15/2017 12:06 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > But if it tunnels into existence at t=0, how can it be infinite in > > extent? I find that egregiously hard to imagine, plus the fact that > > one has to use

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 3:32:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:52 PM, > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> I think every macro system, although comprised of a huge number of >> individual constituents, is in one definite state; > > > ​No object large

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 6:49:33 PM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:05:22AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > One of the strongest arguments for MWI was that it eliminates the > concept of > > a conscious observer from the interpretation of quantum

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 6:31:20 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/14/2017 3:17 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 3:32:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:52 PM, wrote: >> >> ​> ​ >>> I think

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 4:17:29 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 3:32:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:52 PM, wrote: >> >> ​> ​ >>> I think every macro system, although comprised of a huge

### Re: What is the quantum state of a macro object?

On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 7:54:27 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > Interesting questions. Whenever we talk about a system being in a quantum > state, we're thinking of the "system" as some degrees of freedom that are > isolated, so they are not interacting with and becoming entangled with

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 5:19:50 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/15/2017 2:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 2:37:02 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/15/2017 12:06 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> > >> > But if it tunnels

### What is the quantum state of a macro object?

Consider a baseball. Is it in some kind of composite state, however defined, of its constituents? Are all its constituents entangled with the environment? If some are not, are they in a superposition of states? I pose these questions because in my discussions with Clark on another thread, it's

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 11:04:47 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: > > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 6:29 pm, wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:23:48 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:12:09 AM UTC, stathisp

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 8:03:47 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:54 AM, > wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:45:43 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 27 November 2017 at 17:36, wrote: >>>

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 3:28:20 PM UTC, stathisp wrote: > > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 6:23 pm, wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:12:09 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 27 November 2017 at 17:54, wrote: >>>

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:56:39 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/26/2017 9:39 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On 27 November 2017 at 16:19, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On 27/11/2017 4:06 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On 26 November 2017 at

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:13:32 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 4:48:12 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 24 Nov 2017, at 21:58, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, November 24, 2017 at 12:15:46 PM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:08:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/26/2017 10:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On 27 November 2017 at 16:54, wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:48:58 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>

### Is AI really a threat to mankind?

IIRC, this is the view of Hawking and Musk. -- 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

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 2:59:33 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 8:57:41 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > wrote: > > > > ​>>​ > As for collapse, it's easily seen in the double slit experiment. The > electron, say, moves >

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 5:30:07 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: > > ​>> ​ >>> I think think the string theory Multiverse is related to the inflation >>> theory Multiverse and both are related to the Everett

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 9:12:17 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:59 PM, > wrote: > > ​ > ​>> ​ > The electron NEVER produces a smudge on that > photographic > ​ plate regardless ​of if it went through one slit or 2 slits or no slit > at

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 11:24:36 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 1:16 PM, > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> Since your conclusions seem immensely more bizarre than collapse of the >> wf, >> ​ ​ >> your interpretation of what the SE means must be in

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 11:24:36 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 1:16 PM, > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> Since your conclusions seem immensely more bizarre than collapse of the >> wf, >> ​ ​ >> your interpretation of what the SE means must be in

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 1:58:35 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/25/2017 7:38 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 4:08 PM, > wrote: > > * ​> ​>>​ ​ Do you really think that when you pull a slot machine and get some outcome, the 10 million

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 1:19:05 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/25/2017 9:55 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > Applying deBroglie's formula, a change in p changes the wave length, and > thus the distribution on the screen. That is, the ensemble responds to > changes in the wave

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 2:33:16 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 11:24:36 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 1:16 PM, wrote: >> >> ​> ​ >>> Since your conclusions seem immensely more bizarre than

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 3:39:00 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 4:08 PM, > wrote: > > *​>​>>​ ​Do you really think that when you pull a slot machine and get some outcome, the 10 million other possible outcomes occur in 10 million

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 3:06:50 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 9:21:14 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 11:15:40 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I am new to this list and have

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 7:11:52 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 11:55:47 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 3:06:50 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> >>> On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 9:21:14

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 11:15:40 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 9:37:48 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 20 Nov 2017, at 23:04, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> >> You clearly have not grasped the implications of my argument. The idea >>

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Friday, November 24, 2017 at 12:15:46 PM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 22 Nov 2017, at 22:51, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 5:24:48 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 22 Nov 2017, at 09:55, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 2:29:22 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 24 Nov 2017, at 15:59, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 5:53:14 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >> >> On 24/11/2017 10:15 am, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 9:37:48

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 11:05:17 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 8:21 PM, > wrote: > > >> >> Those who believe in non-locality as established by experimental >> evidence, such as Brent and Bruce, and I assume Lawrence as well, do NOT >>

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 11:46:03 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 9:33 PM, > wrote: > > ​>​ >> As for collapse, it's easily seen in the double slit experiment. The >> electron, say, moves through space as a wave -- which explains the >>

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 12:55:24 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 6:36 PM, > wrote: > > >> ​> ​ >> Feynman, who wasn't an MWI enthusiast >> ​ [...] >> > > *​"​Political scientist" L David Raub reports a poll of 72 of the "leading >

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 12:43:05 PM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 20 Nov 2017, at 20:40, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 6:56:52 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 18 Nov 2017, at 21:32, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 3:46:03 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/28/2017 7:29 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: > > ​>> ​ >>> And how is the Eternal Inflation Multiverse fundamentally different from >>> the

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 3:14:28 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:34 PM, > wrote: > > ​>> ​ >>> All 3 assume the same physics. >> >> >> ​> ​ >> ​For string theory, the multiverse universes could have radically >> different fundamental

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 3:24:38 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 29 Nov 2017, at 04:59, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 29/11/2017 2:29 pm, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker < > meek...@verizon.net > wrote: > > ​ >> ​ > And how is the Eternal

### Re: stern gerlach 360

In theory, subsequent measurements will give the same value since the first one puts the system in an eigenstate of the value measured. AG On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 2:18:52 AM UTC, Doug Nelson wrote: > > What would happen if you could set up stern gerlach magnets that would > cause

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 9:14:48 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 8:44:18 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 5:29:01 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:51 PM,

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 8:44:18 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 5:29:01 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:51 PM, wrote: >> >> >>> ​> ​ >>> If, as you claim, any fundamental parameters can

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 11:16:07 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 9:47:37 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> On 30/11/2017 10:59 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 11:42:51 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 9:47:37 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On 30/11/2017 10:59 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 11:42:51 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> On 30/11/2017 10:32 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 4:08:20 AM

### US vs North Korea

Insights welcome as to how this situation will evolve in the next 12 months. TIA, AG -- 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

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:44:25 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: > > > > On 27 November 2017 at 16:25, wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:07:03 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 26 November 2017 at 13:33, wrote: >>> >>> You

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:30:34 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:21:30 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >> >> >> >> On 27 November 2017 at 16:54, wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:48:58 AM UTC,

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:54:13 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:45:43 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >> >> >> >> On 27 November 2017 at 17:36, wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:30:34 AM UTC,

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:12:09 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: > > > > On 27 November 2017 at 17:54, wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:45:43 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 27 November 2017 at 17:36, wrote: >>>

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:21:30 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: > > > > On 27 November 2017 at 16:54, wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:48:58 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:44:25 AM UTC, stathisp

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:45:43 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: > > > > On 27 November 2017 at 17:36, wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:30:34 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:21:30 AM UTC, stathisp

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:23:48 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:12:09 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >> >> >> >> On 27 November 2017 at 17:54, wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:45:43 AM UTC, stathisp wrote:

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:07:03 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: > > > > On 26 November 2017 at 13:33, wrote: > > You keep ignoring the obvious 800 pound gorilla in the room; introducing >> Many Worlds creates hugely more complications than it purports to do away >> with;

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:48:58 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:44:25 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >> >> >> >> On 27 November 2017 at 16:25, wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:07:03 AM UTC, stathisp wrote:

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 12:22:04 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 03:57:37PM -0500, John Clark wrote: > > wrote: > > > > > > > > ​> ​ > > > Your source is fact-challenged. Weinberg thinks MULTIVERSE may have > merit, > > > but NOT

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

mana On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 8:57:41 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > wrote: > > > > ​>>​ > As for collapse, it's easily seen in the double slit experiment. The > electron, say, moves > ​ ​ > through space as a wave -- which explains the interference effects due to

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 4:58:20 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:17 PM, > wrote: > > >> *​> ​How do you distinguish LOCALITY from REALISM?* >> > > They mean different things. Locality means information can't travel faster > than light

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 2:51:56 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 5:24:48 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 22 Nov 2017, at 09:55, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 12:43:05 PM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 5:24:48 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 22 Nov 2017, at 09:55, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 12:43:05 PM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 20 Nov 2017, at 20:40, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 5:21:40 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 8:44:18 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 5:29:01 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:51 PM,

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 6:09:26 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/29/2017 9:34 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 5:21:40 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 8:44:18 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 8:44:18 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 5:29:01 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:51 PM, wrote: >> >> >>> ​> ​ >>> If, as you claim, any fundamental parameters can

### Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 8:38:50 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/29/2017 3:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 28 Nov 2017, at 18:49, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: >> >> This question is more interesting. I

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 11:42:51 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On 30/11/2017 10:32 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 4:08:20 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote: >> >> On 30/11/2017 9:53 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 10:40:36

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 10:40:36 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On 30/11/2017 5:31 am, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > > ​ >​ > ​I see no reason all the Everett worlds have the same physics, > > > ​ > ​ >

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 4:08:20 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote: > > On 30/11/2017 9:53 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 10:40:36 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On 30/11/2017 5:31 am, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Bruce Kellett

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 5:29:01 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:51 PM, > wrote: > > >> ​> ​ >> If, as you claim, any fundamental parameters can exist, >> > > ​ > That > ​ is NOT​ > ​ > what I claimed > ​.​ > I claimed any > ​ ​f >

### Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 8:41:39 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/4/2017 4:24 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > Lawrence is taking the long view, that we're destroying our life > > support systems with the obvious implication that we will go extinct. > > The evidence favors this

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 10:40:36 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On 30/11/2017 5:31 am, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > > ​ >​ > ​I see no reason all the Everett worlds have the same physics, > > > ​ > ​ >

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 9:05:21 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 10:40:36 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On 30/11/2017 5:31 am, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > > ​ >​ > ​I

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 12:26:58 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On 5/12/2017 3:15 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 01 Dec 2017, at 01:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On 1/12/2017 8:57 am, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >>> On 1/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 29 Nov 2017, at 23:16,

### Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 11:19:49 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/4/2017 3:12 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 2:41:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/4/2017 4:24 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> > Lawrence is taking the long view, that we're

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 1:40:25 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 01 Dec 2017, at 22:58, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 4:55:46 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 29 Nov 2017, at 22:55, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November

### Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 12:50:54 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On 5/12/2017 11:38 am, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 12:26:58 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> On 5/12/2017 3:15 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> > On 01 Dec 2017, at 01:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> On