On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> On 18/04/2016 2:53 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
>> On 18/04/2016 10:11 am, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Bruce Kellett <
>> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrot
On 18/04/2016 5:00 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Bruce Kellett
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:
On 18/04/2016 2:53 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Bruce Kellett
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:
On 18/04/20
Jesse wrote:I don't think this is how it's supposed to work for those who argue
the MWI is local like Deutsch. Rather the idea is that "splitting" into worlds
is local, not global; so one experimenter locally splits into copies that see
|+> and |-> when they measure their particle, likewise the
On 18 Apr 2016, at 09:45, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 18/04/2016 5:00 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote:
On 18/04/2016 2:53 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote:
On 18/04/2016 10:11 am, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sun,
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 10:42 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> Unless there is some physical ionteraction tween local closely related
> universes, its all bupkas, or cyhers, Its a breath taking concept in the
> hug everett sense of things, but we
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> >>
>> So is there a way of knowing which of the 4 yous is you other than by
>> observing what Alice and Bob are observing? I
>>
>> f there is I can't imagine what it could be.
>
>
> >
> There doesn't need to be.
>
If you want to know what
Bruno et al:
I think *"definiteness"* is always counterfactual since it *MUST* deny the
potential influences from unknown factors (domains, a/effects, even some
definitely counterfactual influences we do not recognize as such at all).
It is a consequence of our agnostic view (as I recall: we agreed
Another anology, King Canute of Britian ordering the tides not to come in.
I am creepy guy who loves science, not just for the intellectual thrill, but,
especially, what the hell good can it do us?? I always hold to that, unless the
topic is so thrilling to me, that I get obsessed. Sometims,
On 19/04/2016 12:17 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Apr 2016, at 09:45, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Let me reduce this to simple steps:
1) MWI is an interpretation of QM only. I.e., it reproduces all the
results of QM without adding any additional structure or dynamics.
What do you mean by QM? I am
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> On 18/04/2016 5:00 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
>> On 18/04/2016 2:53 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Bruce Kellett <
>> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
This is a foolish, but related question. It is, is there a means, in princple,
to somehow data mine the minkowski light cone? Conceptually, its photons
interacting with baryons of one sort or another, so ought now the photon
patterns of interactions with the old Bohr model of particles? Its a q
On 19/04/2016 10:23 am, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Bruce Kellett
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:
The local mathematical rule in this case, say for observer A, is
that measurement on his own local particle with give either |+> or
|->, with equal pr
?? Every time you perceive something visually you've mined data from
your light cone.
Brent
On 4/18/2016 8:29 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
This is a foolish, but related question. It is, is there a means, in
princple, to somehow data mine the minkowski light cone? Conceptually,
i
13 matches
Mail list logo
