Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 27 Dec 2013, at 19:52, Richard Ruquist wrote: I do not know if it matters but quantum mechanics is based on the Dirac equation, not Shrodinger's equation This indeed change nothing. I agree with Jason. QM without collapse is many-world. If there is no collapse, QM (classical or

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 27 Dec 2013, at 16:34, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno, I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or whatever) of humans strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human consciousness. I agree with you, but I don't do that. The fundamental

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 27 Dec 2013, at 17:51, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 25 Dec 2013, at 18:40, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Are we not presuming, structure, or a-priori, existence of something, doing this processing, this

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 27 Dec 2013, at 23:50, LizR wrote: On 28 December 2013 05:51, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: It has always seemed to me that UDA cannot solve the mind-body problem strictly because it cannot comprehend the existence of other minds. Actually, I have wondered

Re: God or not?

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 27 Dec 2013, at 23:51, LizR wrote: The Tao that can be named... ... is NOT the Tao. Indeed. this is common with most notion of (unique) God, despite most institutionalized religion fall in the trap. The comp religion has this more in common with taoism. On the divine truth, the

Re: Why there is something rather than nothing...

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 27 Dec 2013, at 23:59, LizR wrote: On 28 December 2013 07:11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 25 Dec 2013, at 23:54, LizR wrote: Arithmetical reality theories like comp and Tegmark's MUH assume that the only things that exist are those that must exist (in this case some

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Dec 2013, at 00:20, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:03 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 December 2013 11:55, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi LizR, That is what is not explicitly explained! I could see how one might make an argument

Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Dec 2013, at 00:57, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, I haven't made any progress getting the idea of a common universal present moment across so here's another approach with a thought experiment To start consider two observers standing next to each other. Do they share the same

Re: Why there is something rather than nothing...

2013-12-28 Thread Alberto G. Corona
2013/12/28 LizR lizj...@gmail.com On 28 December 2013 08:23, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: Non existence can not exist. but non existence is not the same than nothing. Nothing can exist . it is not the same than non existence because something exist: nothing. therefore the

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Dec 2013, at 01:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual (measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles. Decoherence is a well

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Dec 2013, at 01:56, Jason Resch wrote: Somewhat. I think how frequently a program is referenced / instantiated by other non-halting programs may play a role. Yes. It has to be like that. Stopping programs should contribute to 0, in the measure conflict. So we are

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Dec 2013, at 02:03, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, You state The UD is a comparatively short program, and provably contains the program that is identical to your mind. You can't be serious! As stated that's the most ridiculous statement I've heard here today in all manner of

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Dec 2013, at 02:04, LizR wrote: On 28 December 2013 13:56, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: The UDA is a comparatively short program, and provably contains the program that is identical to your mind. To be more precise (I hope) - assuming that thoughts, experiences etc are

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Dec 2013, at 03:29, LizR wrote: What I think Jason is saying is that the TRACE of the UD (knowns as UD* - I made the same mistake!) Good :) will eventually contain your mind. Perhaps; but only for nano second. you real mind overlap on sequence of states, with the right

Re: What are wavefunctions?

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:08, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, Answers to your 3 questions. 1. No. 2. Determined by which observer? The cat is always either dead or alive. It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out. Then there is a collapse of the wave. I thought you disagree

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:36, Stephen Paul King wrote: I loath Kronecker's claim! It is synonymous to Man is the measure of all things. What is his claim? I am not familiar with it. God created the Integers, all else is the invention of man. man is a measure of all things is a quote

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:41, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:20 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: There is one point to add which I think you've missed, Jason (apologies if I've misunderstood). The UD generates the first instruction of the first programme, then the first

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:39, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Jason, ISTM that the line For each program we have generated that has not halted, execute one instruction of it for each (Program p in listOfPrograms) is buggy. It assumes that the space of programs that do not halt is

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:44, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Jason, The first, second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th state of the UD's execution are mathematical facts ... Umm, how? Godel and Matiyasevich would disagree! No logicians at all would ever disagree on this. They

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:52, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Jason, ISTM that the line For each program we have generated that has not halted, execute one instruction of it for each (Program p in

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:56, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Jason, Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be translated to a statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus mathematical truth

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:01, Stephen Paul King wrote: How do we distinguish a program from a string of random numbers. (Consider OTP encryptions). In which language? A program fortran will be distinguished by the grammar of Fortran. In some language all numbers will be program. Then , for

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:03, Stephen Paul King wrote: I ask this because I am studying Carl Hewitt's Actor Model... Also know today as object oriented languages. c++ win against smaltalk, which won against the Actor model, but the idea is the same, basically. It is efficacious, but the math

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:06, LizR wrote: Clearly programmes don't have to be deterministic. They could contain a source of genuine randomness, in principle. I don't think the UD does, however. The UD emulates all quantum computer and many sort of non deterministic processes, including all

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:27, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi LizR and Jason, Responding to both of you. I don't understand the claim of determinism is random noise is necessary for the computations. Turing machines require exact pre-specifiability. Adding noise oracles is cheating! But it

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:27, LizR wrote: On 28 December 2013 17:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, You might be able to theoretically simulate it but certainly not compute it in real time which is what reality actually does which is my point. In real time ?! In comp (and

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:31, LizR wrote: On 28 December 2013 17:27, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi LizR and Jason, Responding to both of you. I don't understand the claim of determinism is random noise is necessary for the computations. Turing machines require

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:31, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Jason, On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Jason, It is not a question of whether or not that

Re: What are wavefunctions?

2013-12-28 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Jason, Clock time is emergent from comp but comp takes place sequentially in P-time, which is effectively the processor cycles of comp. This is another way the clock time P-time distinction works to produce reality as it exists No, the particles MUST have their properties determined at

Re: What are wavefunctions?

2013-12-28 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Brent, No, the oppositely aligned spins is NOT a hidden variable and there is no FTL. Reread my post Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 1:20:03 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/27/2013 7:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, All your questions assume a pre-existing space that

Re: All randomness is quantum...

2013-12-28 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Jason, Have you gotten to Part III of my book on Reality yet? It explains how all randomness is quantum, and it explains the source of that randomness is the lack of any governing deterministic equations when the mini-spacetimes that emerge from quantum events have be aligned due to linking at

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:53, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi LizR, This is fun! :-) We must remember that we are defining People as intersections of infinitely many computations. Right? This is a very loose way to talk. Computations are not sets, so intersection of computations is very ill

humans are machines unable to recognize the fact that they are machines,

2013-12-28 Thread Craig Weinberg
humans are machines unable to recognize the fact that they are machines, I would re-word it as 'Humans are not machines but when they introspect on their most mechanical aspects mechanistically, they are able to imagine that they could be machines who are unable recognize the fact. I agree

Re: Metaphor, Electricity, Sun and Moon…

2013-12-28 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Friday, December 27, 2013 11:40:08 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 28 December 2013 17:34, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: It could be said that the electric force, figuratively if not literally (but maybe literally, given a rehabilitated view of physics), creates time.

Re: What are wavefunctions?

2013-12-28 Thread Jason Resch
On Dec 28, 2013, at 6:54 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Clock time is emergent from comp but comp takes place sequentially in P-time, which is effectively the processor cycles of comp. This is another way the clock time P-time distinction works to produce reality as

Re: All randomness is quantum...

2013-12-28 Thread Jason Resch
On Dec 28, 2013, at 7:04 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, Have you gotten to Part III of my book on Reality yet? It explains how all randomness is quantum, and it explains the source of that randomness is the lack of any governing deterministic equations when the

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Jason Resch
On Dec 28, 2013, at 6:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:56, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Jason, Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be translated to

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Bruno, I agree with what you wrote to Richard. If we then consider interactions between multiple separate QM systems, there will be a low level where the many are only one and thus the superposition of state remains. It can be shown that at the separation level there will also be one but

Re: What are wavefunctions?

2013-12-28 Thread spudboy100
One interpretation by some physicists with Cramer's transactional model, implies that information is coming from the future, and handshaking with the paste to create the present. Price's old book seems to imply this as well. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To:

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Bruno, On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 27 Dec 2013, at 17:51, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 25 Dec 2013, at 18:40, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Are we not

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Dec 2013, at 07:32, LizR wrote: On 28 December 2013 18:03, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Jason, I would like to know the definition of reality that you are using here. I quite like whatever doesn't go away when you stop believing in it. I quite like

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Bruno, On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:39, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Jason, ISTM that the line For each program we have generated that has not halted, execute one instruction of it for each (Program p in

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Bruno, On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:56, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Hi Jason, Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Dec 2013, at 07:35, Stephen Paul King wrote: An observer can only experience a reality that is not contradictory to its existence. Tell this to the dictators. Usually a reality guarantied some local consistency by definition of a reality (modeled by the notion of models in logic).

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Bruno, On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:03, Stephen Paul King wrote: I ask this because I am studying Carl Hewitt's Actor Model... Also know today as object oriented languages. c++ win against smaltalk, which won against

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Bruno, On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:27, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi LizR and Jason, Responding to both of you. I don't understand the claim of determinism is random noise is necessary for the computations. Turing

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Dec 2013, at 07:26, meekerdb wrote: He proposes to dispense with any physical computation and have the UD exist via arithmetical realism as an abstract, immaterial computation. What does a physicist? It looks outside, and seem to be believe in a special unique universal number,

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Dec 2013, at 07:30, meekerdb wrote: On 12/27/2013 8:24 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Edgar, But here is the thing. If we assume timelessness, Bruno is CORRECT! THe question then becomes: What is time? It's a computed partial ordering relation between events. The 1p time looks

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Bruno, On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:27, LizR wrote: On 28 December 2013 17:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, You might be able to theoretically simulate it but certainly not compute it in real time

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth right now? Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer. I answered this two times already. The answer is 1. At last a straight answer, the

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 28 Dec 2013, at 07:34, LizR wrote: On 28 December 2013 19:31, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Computed how? By what? I know the answer to this one! To quote Brent -- He proposes to dispense with any physical computation and have the UD exist via arithmetical

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Bruno, On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 07:34, LizR wrote: On 28 December 2013 19:31, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Computed how? By what? I know the answer to this one! To quote Brent -- He proposes

Re: What are wavefunctions?

2013-12-28 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Jason, No, you simply don't understand what I'm saying, what my model is. There are two independent separate mini spacetime fragments here. When you understand that you will see how it works and avoids the problems you point out... You should not feel bad that you missed it. It goes against

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Bruno, Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world. Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:48:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time Yes Many Worlds is absolutely outlandish but that doesn't mean it's incorrect because if there is one thing that quantum mechanics has taught us

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: With decoherence everything is a wavefunction No. With Quantum Mechanics NOTHING is a wave function, that is to say no observable quantity is. The wave function is a calculation device of no more reality than lines of

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread Edgar L. Owen
John, Sure, I agree if you want to define 'things' as decoherence results rather than the wave functions that decohere to produce them. That's standard QM. I'm just using common parlance. But this is irrelevant to my points. Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 1:47:17 PM UTC-5, John Clark

Re: humans are machines unable to recognize the fact that they are machines,

2013-12-28 Thread freqflyer07281972
Hey Craig, What is the origin of the quote? Also, what privileges the process of 'introspection' to reveal anything contrary to the hypothesis that we are machines? Isn't introspection a bit of a dubious test for finding out a thing's machinehood? Finally, I'm not so sure that it is

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread meekerdb
On 12/28/2013 3:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Perhaps; but only for nano second. you real mind overlap on sequence of states, with the right probabilities, and for this you need the complete run of the UD, because your next moment is determioned by the FPI on all computations. That's a point

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread Jason Resch
On Dec 28, 2013, at 12:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bruno, Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world.

Bard rows sorcerer back to disclose cryptic riddle (9)

2013-12-28 Thread LizR
Please, brainy people, have a go at my crosswords! http://crossswords.wordpress.com/ :-) -- 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: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread meekerdb
On 12/28/2013 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:36, Stephen Paul King wrote: I loath Kronecker's claim! It is synonymous to Man is the measure of all things. What is his claim? I am not familiar with it. God created the Integers, all else is the invention

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread meekerdb
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate computationally a random number, and that is right, if we want generate only that numbers. but a simple counting algorithm generating all numbers, 0, 1, 2, 6999500235148668, ...

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread meekerdb
On 12/28/2013 4:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:27, LizR wrote: On 28 December 2013 17:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, You might be able to theoretically simulate it but certainly not compute it in real time which is

Re: What are wavefunctions?

2013-12-28 Thread meekerdb
On 12/28/2013 4:54 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, Clock time is emergent from comp but comp takes place sequentially in P-time, which is effectively the processor cycles of comp. No, the computational steps have nothing to do with the computed time. Just as when I run a Monte Carlo

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread John Mikes
Dear Bruno, when you wrote: *...arithmetic number's dreams = physics* *OK? Physics is based on experience, but not on human one. * *And experiences are based on arithmetic/computer-science...* for the 'unbiased reader ' you started to seem (pardon me!) incoherent. That entire

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Jason, You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for them. There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever. Why do you think there is a connection? To answer your last question, I'm pretty confident

Re: What are wavefunctions?

2013-12-28 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Brent, Maybe in your theory of reality but not in mine... Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 4:39:18 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:54 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, Clock time is emergent from comp but comp takes place sequentially in P-time, which is effectively the

Re: What are wavefunctions?

2013-12-28 Thread Jason Resch
On Dec 28, 2013, at 10:11 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: One interpretation by some physicists with Cramer's transactional model, implies that information is coming from the future, and handshaking with the paste to create the present. Price's old book seems to imply this as well.

Re: Why there is something rather than nothing...

2013-12-28 Thread LizR
On 28 December 2013 23:46, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/12/28 LizR lizj...@gmail.com On 28 December 2013 08:23, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: Non existence can not exist. but non existence is not the same than nothing. Nothing can exist . it is not the

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread LizR
On 29 December 2013 00:26, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 03:53, Jason Resch wrote: Would any universal number do? That is what Bruno speculatively has suggested. I am not so sure. Sometimes I think an if-then-else-statement contains all that is

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread LizR
On 29 December 2013 07:30, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bruno, Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world. The MWI

Re: All randomness is quantum...

2013-12-28 Thread John Mikes
List: Is there a 'well' acceptable definition for R A N D O M? (my non-Indo-European mothertongue has no word expressing the meaning - if I got it right. My 2nd mothertongue (German) calls it exbeliebig = kind of: whatever I like) My position as far as I got the right semantic meaning would be:

Re: All randomness is quantum...

2013-12-28 Thread Jason Resch
John, I think there are a couple of senses in which the word random can be used: 1. Uncompressibe (maximum entropy) for some information, sequence, or data 2. Unpredictable in theory or practice a. When in theory, a non-deterministic process such as such as with wave-function collapse or

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread Liz R
On Saturday, 28 December 2013 06:18:26 UTC+13, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was proposed. Do Fortunately, science is not decided on what seems probable to

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Jason Resch
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate computationally a random number, and that is right, if we want generate only that numbers. but a simple counting

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread Stephen Paul King
Something to think about: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205142218.htm#! On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Liz R lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, 28 December 2013 06:18:26 UTC+13, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread meekerdb
On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for them. There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever. Why do you think there is a connection?

Re: What are wavefunctions?

2013-12-28 Thread meekerdb
On 12/28/2013 1:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Dec 28, 2013, at 10:11 AM, spudboy...@aol.com mailto:spudboy...@aol.com wrote: One interpretation by some physicists with Cramer's transactional model, implies that information is coming from the future, and handshaking with the paste to create

Re: What are wavefunctions?

2013-12-28 Thread meekerdb
It's not my theory, it's Bruno's. But in my reality I have often run simulations in which the computed time of events was not in the same order as the time of their computation. Brent On 12/28/2013 1:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, Maybe in your theory of reality but not in mine...

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Brent, Does it necessarily have to be one or the other? Could both be true in a sense? Consider how QM has a matrix formulation and a wave function formulation... On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason,

Re: All randomness is quantum...

2013-12-28 Thread Jesse Mazer
Jason Resch wrote: indeed quantum randomness itself may only be a special case of this new type of randomness (discovered by Bruno). I don't think Bruno claims to have discovered the notion that there can be first-person randomness even in a universe which is deterministic from a third-person

Re: humans are machines unable to recognize the fact that they are machines,

2013-12-28 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 4:10:08 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Hey Craig, What is the origin of the quote? It was just something that someone said on Facebook, but I feel like it represents the thinking of a lot of people. Also, what privileges the process of

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread meekerdb
On 12/28/2013 3:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate computationally a random

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread meekerdb
On 12/28/2013 3:17 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Brent, Does it necessarily have to be one or the other? Could both be true in a sense? Consider how QM has a matrix formulation and a wave function formulation... I don't think so - it would require a somewhat tortured interpretation.

Re: All randomness is quantum...

2013-12-28 Thread John Mikes
Jason, thanks for your help. I am afraid it does not help me much. Whatever you listed is contrary to my agnostic doubts. Your #1:since I do not accept p[hysical phenomena as well understood 'reality', entropy is doubtful. It is bound to the level of known circumstances (the maximum disorder that

Re: All randomness is quantum...

2013-12-28 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Jason and John, If something is random it can't be computed by any deterministic process. That's the meaning. However we have to be careful because there is another kind of non-computability due to either not enough input data or computing power. The weather would be a combination of

Re: What are wavefunctions?

2013-12-28 Thread meekerdb
On 12/27/2013 10:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote: To that I would add the purely epistemic non-intepretation of Peres and Fuchs. No interpretation needed -- I can interpret this in two ways, one way is to just take the math and equations literally (this leads to Everett), the other is shut up

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Brent, The equations produce the results, you are trying to impose unwarranted interpretations on them... EDgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:12:47 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I

Re: All randomness is quantum...

2013-12-28 Thread meekerdb
On 12/28/2013 4:11 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason and John, If something is random it can't be computed by any deterministic process. That's the meaning. That's one possible meaning, although it can only strictly apply to infinite sets of something. I think of random as just being an

Re: What are wavefunctions?

2013-12-28 Thread meekerdb
On 12/27/2013 10:54 PM, LizR wrote: On 28 December 2013 19:37, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:26 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 December 2013 18:39, Jason Resch

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Brent, You are implying there is some difficulty in calculating specific decoherence results yet the people who are performing experiments in decoherence have no such problem in calculating them with no reference at all to either of your interpretations or choosing between them... The math

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread meekerdb
On 12/28/2013 4:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, The equations produce the results, you are trying to impose unwarranted interpretations on them... But decoherence doesn't produce *a* result. It produces a set of probabilities. How do you get from there to the definite observation?

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread meekerdb
On 12/28/2013 4:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, You are implying there is some difficulty in calculating specific decoherence results yet the people who are performing experiments in decoherence have no such problem in calculating them with no reference at all to either of your

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Liz, OK, this is an extremely important issue. I agree that we are unaware of the parts of the universal wavefunction with which we aren't entangled (correlated), and decoherence explains why this is so. That is precisely what my approach to quantum mini-spacetimes is. But the next step is

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Brent, You are quibbling. It's just in other equations in the process. If it wasn't, it couldn't be computed and we would have no theory of decoherence that produces results but of course we do... Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:28:24 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:21 PM,

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Brent, Sure, of course. I see what you mean now. Omnes is of course correct. That's what the equations tell us, that the results will be probabilistic. It's Everett who is off his rocker here by trying to impose some outlandish alternative interpretation Edgar On Saturday, December

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Brent, Allow me to use your words directly: Do you, like Omnes, simply observe that you have predicted probabilities and so one of them obtains. Or do you go with Evertt and say that all of them exist with different measures and the apparent randomness is an illusion due to our

Re: What are wavefunctions?

2013-12-28 Thread Jason Resch
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/27/2013 10:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote: To that I would add the purely epistemic non-intepretation of Peres and Fuchs. No interpretation needed -- I can interpret this in two ways, one way is to just take the math

Re: Bruno's mathematical reality

2013-12-28 Thread Jason Resch
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/28/2013 3:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot

  1   2   >