Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 27 Nov 2017, at 00:07, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 2:29:22 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Nov 2017, at 15:59, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 5:53:14 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: On 24/11/2017 10:15 am, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 27 Nov 2017, at 01:55, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 6:36 PM, wrote: ​> ​Feynman, who wasn't an MWI enthusiast​ [...] ​"​Political scientist" L David Raub reports a poll of 72 of the "leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" about the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 12:19:53 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 26 Nov 2017, at 21:56, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > and in modal logic it is □p → p. > > > No, that is the reflexion formula, typically not provable in general (for > exemple Bf -> f, with f representing the constant

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

There is an old sci-fi novel (by Stanislaw Lem I believe), where the main powers decide to move all the automatic weapons to the moon and fight a permanent war there, without harming anyone on earth. Who knows... :) On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: >

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

Hi Jason, On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > I think there might be two ways of interpreting this, each with different > answers. > > The first question: Does AI create more threats that never existed before? > > I think the answer is most definitely

Re: Feynman and the Everything

On 27 Nov 2017, at 04:04, Jason Resch wrote: Richard Feynman in "The Character of Physical Law" Chapter 2 wrote: "It always bothers me that according to the laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 27 Nov 2017, at 18:10, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 8:29:22 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Nov 2017, at 15:59, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 5:53:14 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: On 24/11/2017 10:15 am, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On

Re: Feynman and the Everything

On 28 November 2017 at 13:50, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 27 Nov 2017, at 04:04, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> Richard Feynman in "The Character of Physical Law" Chapter 2 wrote: >> >> "It

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

Jason, I think there might be two ways of interpreting this, each with different answers. The first question: Does AI create more threats that never existed before? No more than a not well educated kid. Especially when with guns and bombs. I think the answer is most

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > This question is more interesting. I tend to fall in the camp that we > exercise little control over the ultimate decision made by such a super > intelligence, but I am optimistic that a super intelligence will, during

Re: Feynman and the Everything

On 27 Nov 2017, at 23:08, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Jason Resch wrote: ​> ​Richard Feynman in "The Character of Physical Law" Chapter 2 wrote: "It always bothers me that according to the laws as we understand them today, it takes a

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:46 PM, wrote: *​> ​If Weinberg thinks the MWI is "repellent", do you really think he > finds it plausible?* Yes ​ ​ absolutely!! Weinberg is on record for saying the universe is "pointless" and he probably thinks being pointless is pretty

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​>> ​ >> I think think the string theory Multiverse is related to the inflation >> theory Multiverse and both are related to the Everett >> ​/​ >> ​D​ >> eutsch Multiverse. When 3 different theories independently point

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 27 Nov 2017, at 21:53, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:56:39 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 11/26/2017 9:39 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 27 November 2017 at 16:19, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 27/11/2017 4:06 pm, Stathis

Re: Feynman and the Everything

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 7:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 27 Nov 2017, at 04:04, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> Richard Feynman in "The Character of Physical Law" Chapter 2 wrote: >> >> "It

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 28 Nov 2017, at 11:56, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 12:19:53 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Nov 2017, at 21:56, Lawrence Crowell wrote: and in modal logic it is □p → p. No, that is the reflexion formula, typically not provable in general (for exemple

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:03 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > If you have some time/patience, let me know what you think of my arguments > here: > https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02009 > > Telmo, Interesting read. In general I have a lot of sympathy for this view. I think

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 27 Nov 2017, at 20:46, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:13:32 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 4:48:12 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Nov 2017, at 21:58, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 24, 2017

Re: Feynman and the Everything

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 27 Nov 2017, at 04:04, Jason Resch wrote: > > > Richard Feynman in "The Character of Physical Law" Chapter 2 wrote: > > "It always bothers me that according to the laws as we understand them > today, it takes a

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 27 Nov 2017, at 23:02, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/27/2017 10:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The formal modal formula is B(Bp -> p) -> Bp. It looks also like wishful thinking. If you succeed in convincing a Löbian entity (whose beliefs are close for the Löb rule, or having Löb's theorem

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:59 PM, wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> The electron NEVER produces a smudge on that >> photographic >> ​ plate regardless ​of if it went through one slit or 2 slits or no slit >> at all. >> > > ​> ​ > Three strikes as follows: If it produced a mathematical

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 5:30:07 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: > > ​>> ​ >>> I think think the string theory Multiverse is related to the inflation >>> theory Multiverse and both are related to the Everett

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 9:12:17 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:59 PM, > wrote: > > ​ > ​>> ​ > The electron NEVER produces a smudge on that > photographic > ​ plate regardless ​of if it went through one slit or 2 slits or no slit > at

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/28/2017 7:29 PM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker >wrote: ​>> ​ And how is the Eternal Inflation Multiverse fundamentally different from the String Theory Multiverse? ​

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 29/11/2017 3:22 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 7:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 2:29 pm, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​ >> ​ And how is the Eternal Inflation Multiverse fundamentally

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​>> ​ >> And how is the Eternal Inflation Multiverse fundamentally different from >> the String Theory Multiverse? >> ​ >> > > ​> ​ > I didn't say they were different from each other; I said they were > different from the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 29/11/2017 2:29 pm, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker >wrote: ​ >> ​ And how is the Eternal Inflation Multiverse fundamentally different from the String Theory Multiverse? ​

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/28/2017 7:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 2:29 pm, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​ >> ​ And how is the Eternal Inflation Multiverse fundamentally different from the String Theory

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 3:46:03 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/28/2017 7:29 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: > > ​>> ​ >>> And how is the Eternal Inflation Multiverse fundamentally different from >>> the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/28/2017 8:51 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 3:22 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 7:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 2:29 pm, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​ >> ​ And how is the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 29/11/2017 5:28 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 8:51 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 3:22 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 7:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 2:29 pm, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 3:14:28 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:34 PM, > wrote: > > ​>> ​ >>> All 3 assume the same physics. >> >> >> ​> ​ >> ​For string theory, the multiverse universes could have radically >> different fundamental

stern gerlach 360

What would happen if you could set up stern gerlach magnets that would cause particles to bend through an entire circle back through the magnet? Since there state has collapsed once and no new measurement has been performed would the particles just go through the magnet and bend the same way

Re: stern gerlach 360

In theory, subsequent measurements will give the same value since the first one puts the system in an eigenstate of the value measured. AG On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 2:18:52 AM UTC, Doug Nelson wrote: > > What would happen if you could set up stern gerlach magnets that would > cause

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 at 11:52 am, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 11/28/2017 6:33 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > If you look at everything that motivates all human endeavors, it is > > ultimately, all about realizing and maximizing good experiences while > > avoiding and minimizing

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 11/28/2017 6:47 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 at 11:52 am, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 11/28/2017 6:33 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > If you look at everything that motivates all human endeavors, it is >

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:34 PM, wrote: ​>> ​ >> All 3 assume the same physics. > > > ​> ​ > ​For string theory, the multiverse universes could have radically > different fundamental parameters; e.g., Coulomb's law with force a function > of 1/ r^3, and/or no gravity,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/28/2017 9:30 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Brent Meeker >wrote: ​>> ​ I think think the string theory Multiverse is related to the inflation theory Multiverse and both are related to the

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 11/28/2017 6:33 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > >> If you look at everything that motivates all human endeavors, it is >> ultimately, all about realizing and maximizing good experiences while >> avoiding and minimizing

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/28/2017 7:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Nov 2017, at 23:02, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/27/2017 10:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The formal modal formula is B(Bp -> p) -> Bp. It looks also like wishful thinking. If you succeed in convincing a Löbian entity (whose beliefs are

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 11/28/2017 6:33 AM, Jason Resch wrote: If you look at everything that motivates all human endeavors, it is ultimately, all about realizing and maximizing good experiences while avoiding and minimizing bad experiences. Mostly, but not entirely.  People (especially parents) sacrifice for