nichomachus wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 17, 1:21 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are you saying that the second law is verified in each of all
"branches" of the (quantum) multive
Since there is a distinct possibility that readers of Russell's 'Theory of
Nothing' book will be left with the wrong impression that my approach to the
White Rabbit problem is essentially the same as that of the author, I feel I
should at least record here a brief summary of the relevant part of
On Apr 19, 2:17 am, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> nichomachus wrote:
>
> > On Apr 17, 1:21 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Telmo Menezes wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you saying that the second law
I have elaborated a comprehensive analysis of Russell's derivation of
quantum mechanics; the article can be found online on my homepage:
http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~yayaita/Russell_Derivation_QM.pdf
An extract:
1. Point of Departure
In his article "Why Occam's Razor" and in appendix D
> But the gun would only fire if the atom did in fact decay. It would
> not fire in the branches where no decay was detected.
I am not proposing that it is the firing of the gun that causes the
entropy increase that compensates for the atom not decaying. What
increases entropy is the initial se
On Apr 19, 10:42 am, "Telmo Menezes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But the gun would only fire if the atom did in fact decay. It would
> > not fire in the branches where no decay was detected.
>
> I am not proposing that it is the firing of the gun that causes the
> entropy increase that compen
Bruno,
> more seriously imo. And then I tell you without further explanation
> that "the prestige" is truly more. We can come back on this later.
OK I cave in, I will watch this movie :-))
Cheers,
Günther
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because
> Those branches exist even if the experiment is not set
> up. This follows necessarily from the MWI. Pick any date in history
> that you like. There must exist fluke branches that have experienced
> unlikely histories since that time. The example I mentioned previously
> was no atomic decay
One of my references did not 'HTMLize' properly for some reason. This one
should:
www.physica.freeserve.co.uk/pa01.htm
- Original Message -
From: Alastair Malcolm
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 9:48 AM
Subject: 'White Rabbit' solution summary (+ simplicit
Apologies - still some technical problem (it worked when I tested it out). If
anyone's interested in the ref it's best to edit the URL line or retype.
- Original Message -
From: Alastair Malcolm
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: 'White R
On Apr 19, 11:51 am, "Telmo Menezes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Those branches exist even if the experiment is not set
> > up. This follows necessarily from the MWI. Pick any date in history
> > that you like. There must exist fluke branches that have experienced
> > unlikely histories sin
> How would it work? The point of the suicider experiement is that the
> suicider is able to prove to himself the reality of MWI by forcing
> himself to experience only an absurdly low probability set of events.
> Thus, he demonstrates to the few versions of himself who remain the
> existence
Dear Nichomachus,
> decision. If she measures the particle's spin as positive, she will
> elect to switch cases, and if she measures it with a negative spin she
> will keep the one she has. This is because she wants to be sure that,
> having gotten to this point in the game, there will be at leas
nichomachus wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 19, 2:17 am, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> nichomachus wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 17, 1:21 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Telmo Menezes wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Are you
nichomachus wrote:
> On Apr 19, 11:51 am, "Telmo Menezes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Those branches exist even if the experiment is not set
>>> up. This follows necessarily from the MWI. Pick any date in history
>>> that you like. There must exist fluke branches that have experienced
>>> u
Günther Greindl wrote:
> Dear Nichomachus,
>
>> decision. If she measures the particle's spin as positive, she will
>> elect to switch cases, and if she measures it with a negative spin she
>> will keep the one she has. This is because she wants to be sure that,
>> having gotten to this point in
On Apr 19, 4:26 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> nichomachus wrote:
> > On Apr 19, 11:51 am, "Telmo Menezes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Those branches exist even if the experiment is not set
> >>> up. This follows necessarily from the MWI. Pick any date in history
> >>> tha
nichomachus wrote:
>
> On Apr 19, 4:26 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> nichomachus wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 19, 11:51 am, "Telmo Menezes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
> Those branches exist even if the experiment is not set
> up. This follows necessarily fro
Perhaps if you added the protocol part of the URL (http://)? Without
it, client programs cannot know that it is even a URL, unless it is
something like the address bar of a web browser, where it is assumed to be
a URL, and http:// is the default protocol if not specified.
Being a bit old-fashione
Yes, I should have mentioned ASSA and RSSA as discussed on this list in the
dark ages.
I don't buy QTI for quite a few reasons. A "model independent" objection I
have is the following. If you accept QTI, then the information you have
about your history will have to grow without limit (if not, the
On 20/04/2008, Saibal Mitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't buy QTI for quite a few reasons. A "model independent" objection I
> have is the following. If you accept QTI, then the information you have
> about your history will have to grow without limit (if not, then effectively
> you ha
Saibal Mitra wrote:
> Yes, I should have mentioned ASSA and RSSA as discussed on this list in the
> dark ages.
>
> I don't buy QTI for quite a few reasons. A "model independent" objection I
> have is the following. If you accept QTI, then the information you have
> about your history will have to
22 matches
Mail list logo
