David Barrett-Lennard
> Isn't "non-locality" simply associated with
> the ability for the "future" to affect the "past"?
Imo future and past means time, and light cones, etc.
If there is no flow of time, there is no past, and
no future.
But I may be wrong. Because, at this level, as
pointed o
According to QM, in small systems evolving according to the Hamiltonian,
time certainly exists but there is no arrow of time within the scope of
the experiment. In such small systems we can run the movie backwards
and everything looks normal. Of course the movie can't include a
measurement suitab
All this talk of quantum immortality seems like anthropocentric wishful
thinking to me.
You are a process. All physical objects are best understood as slow
processes.
A life process is a very complex physical pattern, which is an
arrangement of matter and energy in space-time,
that has propert
David Barrett-Lennard
> According to QM, in small systems evolving according to the Hamiltonian,
> time certainly exists but there is no arrow of time within the scope of
> the experiment. In such small systems we can run the movie backwards
> and everything looks normal.
Yes, but how small? Bec
Hi,
- Original Message -
From: "Pete Carlton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Greetings;
> this reply has taken some time...
>
> > I don't quite agree with your point of view, and the reason is maybe
> > similar to our disagreement in my statement: "It is not useful to talk
> > about 1st person ex
scerir wrote:
David Barrett-Lennard
> According to QM, in small systems evolving according to the Hamiltonian,
> time certainly exists but there is no arrow of time within the scope
of
> the experiment. In such small systems we can run the movie
backwards
> and everything looks normal.
Yes, but
scerir wrote:
David Barrett-Lennard
> Isn't "non-locality" simply associated with
> the ability for the "future" to affect the "past"?
Imo future and past means time, and light cones, etc.
If there is no flow of time, there is no past, and
no future.
The association between non-locality and "retr
This list is dedicated to exploring the implications of the prospect
that all universes exist. According to this principle, universes
exist with all possible laws of physics. It follows that universes
exist which follow the MWI; and universes exist where only one branch
is real and where the othe
> http://arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9501011
> Both the "protective" and the "weak-value" experiments
> associated with this idea are now being tried out...
> -Joao
Yes and they are testing the famous 3-quantum-boxes
paradox http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0310091
with related negative probabilities!
Ca
Hal Finney wrote:
This list is dedicated to exploring the implications
of the prospect
that all universes exist. According to this principle, universes
exist with all possible laws of physics. It follows that universes
exist which follow the MWI; and universes exist where only one branch
is rea
As I recall, Tegmark also said that there would be classically deterministic
universes, with no quantum physics at all. So, it seems that an SAS in such a universe
would have no reason to surmise a Level III multiverse. It makes you wonder what
things we SASs don't know about, that might have le
CORRECTION -- sorry -- Ben Udell.
As I recall, Tegmark also said that there would be classically deterministic
universes, with no quantum physics at all. So, it seems that an SAS in such a universe
would have no reason to surmise a Level III multiverse. It makes you wonder what
things we SASs d
David Barrett-Lennard, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, writes:
> Given the idea of the ensemble for a TOE, it is only necessary that
> SAS's can exist - no matter how improbable. That they exist is of
> course an empirical fact. An SAS will find the universe is fine tuned
> in order for that SAS to exist
Benjamin Udell, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, writes:
> As I recall, Tegmark also said that there would be classically
> deterministic universes, with no quantum physics at all. So, it seems
> that an SAS in such a universe would have no reason to surmise a Level
> III multiverse. It makes you wonder what
David Kwinter wrote:
Thank you Bruno & Jesse, this "anticipatory QTI" is the most awesome
interpretation of QM I've ever heard.
It's not so much an interpretation of QM as "the many-worlds interpretation
of QM + some assumptions about laws of consciousness, particularly laws
governing first-per
I'm sure we all agree that QM on its own is not the full story. Ditto
with GR. Has anyone claimed to come up with a self consistent, complete
description of our universe? Saying that "all universes exist which
follow the MWI" is putting too much faith in a partial (and perhaps
merely approximat
By small I meant "small number of particles".
- David
-Original Message-
From: scerir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 13 November 2003 6:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: "spooky action at a distance"
David Barrett-Lennard
> According to QM, in small systems evolving
17 matches
Mail list logo
