Hi Godfrey,
Le 18-août-05, à 20:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
[BM]
OK. Now I agree with Lee, and many on the FOR and the Everything
lists that Everett (many-worlds + decoherence already) constitutes a
solution of the measurement problem. All measurements are just
interaction, and then
Serafino,
I think I get the gist of what you are saying but it is not quite
the case. There is no energy flux directly associated with
wave-functions (like with electomagnetic or mechanical waves)
but is a probability density and a probability flux associated with
the square of linear
Hi Hal,
From what you say below I am not able to determine whether your model
is identical or
distinct from Bruno's in the only point that I am interested in so let
me ask you:
Is your model falsified if YD is false or can you still dance if
that is the case?
I am asking because
Hi, I apologize if I misunderstood your differents posts here as I'm not an
english native but I find very insulting your way to discuss with people...
Either you have an argument to the YD hypothesis, either you haven't... stop
turning around the hole...
Quentin
Le Vendredi 19 Août 2005
Hi Godfrey,
As you wrote in reply to others, local deterministic models seem to be ruled
out. The class of all formally describable models is much larger than that
of only the local deterministic models. So, although 't Hooft may be proved
wrong (if loopholes like pre-determinism don't save
Hi Bruno,
OK. I think we are making progress. I will start the other thread
after this message
as I don't really have more obvious divergences from you and you are
kind enough
to indulge me in this little diversion. As before I will erase the
obvious points of
agreement below...
Godfrey
Dear Quentin,
Je m'excuse. It is not my intension to insult anyone least of all you
since I don't quite remember having directed any message to you
personally!
I have used some irony in discussing with Bruno but meant no harm by
it.
My feeling from reading the different posts is that
Hi Saibal,
You are entirely correct about that. Non-local models can indeed
reproduce QM. No surprise than that all the remaining approaches to
the unification of physical theories still fighting it out (string/M
theories,
loop quantum gravity, twistor theory) are non-loca,l unlike the old
Dear,
Le Vendredi 19 Août 2005 18:27, vous avez écrit :
Dear Quentin,
Je m'excuse. It is not my intension to insult anyone least of all you
since I don't quite remember having directed any message to you
personally!
No, none directed to me... I don't know if it's my poor comprehension of
Hi Quentin,
No harm done. I think I understand your comment and I fully
agree that I sound like I am bluffing. But I still have hope that
Bruno will come to his senses and accept my bargain (which is
much less risky than the one his Doctor proposes, by the way!)
I take it that French is your
Hi Godfrey:
My model starts with what I describe as unavoidable definition - of the All
and [simultaneously] the Nothing.
Any definition defines a pair of two objects. The target object such as a
flower [the is part of the pair] and an object that has the remainder of
the list of all
Dear Bruno and Godfrey,
It seems to me a proof that YD is false be equivalent to a proof that a
Machine X fails the Turing Test! Is this nonsense about falsifying YD not a
requirement that we prove a negative proposition?
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL
Hi, Hal,
I wrote lately that 'our' (two but distinct and
different) theories started from a somewuat similar
way
of thinking. That startup was more than a decade ago.
Since then you transformed yours in its aspects and I
did so as well. You went the theoretical way, I
followed a practical
13 matches
Mail list logo
