Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 10-12-2017 22:55, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/10/2017 4:06 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 21:12, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/9/2017 2:36 AM, smitra wrote: Yes, it's a different argument but it's also generically correct. But I do think for the discussions in this list it doesn't matter all

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 5:13:38 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 10:54:11 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 3:34:33 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, December 9, 2017

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/10/2017 5:23 PM, smitra wrote: On 10-12-2017 22:55, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/10/2017 4:06 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 21:12, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/9/2017 2:36 AM, smitra wrote: Yes, it's a different argument but it's also generically correct. But I do think for the

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

On 12/10/2017 5:25 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 5:13:38 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 10:54:11 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 3:34:33 PM UTC-6,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/12/2017 12:21 pm, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: What you have to do if you want to claim that all chance outcomes are of quantum origin is compare the relative magnitudes of quantum and thermal fluctuations at room temperature -- room temperature because that is

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 11:41:21 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 4:42 PM, > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> What is the connection between the Equivalence Principle and Einstein's >> Field Equations? How did the former lead to the latter? Why was the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11-12-2017 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 10/12/2017 11:06 pm, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 21:12, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/9/2017 2:36 AM, smitra wrote: Yes, it's a different argument but it's also generically correct. But I do think for the discussions in this list it doesn't matter all

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 09-12-2017 21:12, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/9/2017 2:36 AM, smitra wrote: Yes, it's a different argument but it's also generically correct. But I do think for the discussions in this list it doesn't matter all that much whether an initial single branch will diverge into multiple branches

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 09 Dec 2017, at 01:07, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, December 8, 2017 at 5:54:51 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Dec 2017, at 03:37, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, December 8, 2017 at 1:42:01 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 12/7/2017 3:19 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 08 Dec 2017, at 19:30, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/8/2017 2:09 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Dec 2017, at 10:01, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 11:50 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 09 Dec 2017, at 02:15, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/8/2017 4:49 PM, smitra wrote: If this were not true then each single conscious experience would contain in it information about such things as the exact number of atoms in the Earth, Sun etc. etc. That sounds like a reductio against

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Dec 2017, at 00:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2017, at 12:19, Bruce Kellett wrote: But as I pointed out, thermal motion gives momenta of

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 09 Dec 2017, at 01:40, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/8/2017 4:27 PM, smitra wrote: On 08-12-2017 01:46, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 11:43 am, smitra wrote: On 08-12-2017 00:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2017, at 12:19, Bruce Kellett

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 09-12-2017 21:18, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/9/2017 4:00 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 12:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 9:44 pm, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 02:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 11:49 am, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 2:17:38 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 7:34:29 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> I think you're making the unwarranted assumption that the measured shift >> in H is not >> effected by the cosmological red

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 09 Dec 2017, at 11:29, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 02:15, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/8/2017 4:49 PM, smitra wrote: If this were not true then each single conscious experience would contain in it information about such things as the exact number of atoms in the Earth, Sun etc. etc.

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 09 Dec 2017, at 21:07, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/9/2017 2:22 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 02:03, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/8/2017 4:49 PM, smitra wrote: It's not irrelevant if you don't have the information that locates you in a sector where the uncertainties are indeed small

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 09 Dec 2017, at 02:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 11:49 am, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Dec 2017, at 00:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2017, at 12:19,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:15 AM, wrote: ​> ​ > The fundamental unproven assumption, and IMO the core fallacy of the MWI, > is the belief that what CAN occur, necessarily MUST will occur. > The ​ ​ fundamental ​ ​ assumption of the MWI is that the ​ ​ Schrodinger ​Wave

Re: Is AI really a threat to mankind?

On 09 Dec 2017, at 15:48, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 5:19:02 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 9:47:42 PM UTC, Brent wrote: When I took a series of classes in Artificial Intelliegence at UCLA in the '70s the professor

Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

What is the connection between the Equivalence Principle and Einstein's Field Equations? How did the former lead to the latter? Why was the man falling from the ladder so decisive in leading to the Theory of General Relativity? TIA, AG -- You received this message because you are subscribed

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 09 Dec 2017, at 13:00, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 12:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 9:44 pm, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 02:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 11:49 am, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 4:49:54 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > What is the connection between the Equivalence Principle and Einstein's > Field Equations? How did the former lead to the latter? Why was the man > falling from the ladder so decisive in leading to the Theory of

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On 12/10/2017 8:49 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: What is the connection between the Equivalence Principle and Einstein's Field Equations? It led to the idea that force-free paths in space could be geodesic paths in spacetime, so the apparent acceleration falling objects could be

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/10/2017 4:06 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 21:12, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/9/2017 2:36 AM, smitra wrote: Yes, it's a different argument but it's also generically correct. But I do think for the discussions in this list it doesn't matter all that much whether an initial single

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/10/2017 4:42 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 21:18, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/9/2017 4:00 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 12:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 9:44 pm, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 02:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 11:49 am, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/10/2017 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2017, at 01:40, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/8/2017 4:27 PM, smitra wrote: On 08-12-2017 01:46, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 11:43 am, smitra wrote: On 08-12-2017 00:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Similarly, a shroedinger car, once alive + dead, will never become a pure alive, or dead cat. It will only seems so for anyone looking at the cat, in the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/10/2017 9:26 AM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:15 AM, >wrote: ​> ​ The fundamental unproven assumption, and IMO the core fallacy of the MWI, is the belief that what CAN occur, necessarily MUST will

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 3:34:33 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 2:17:38 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 7:34:29 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I think you're making the unwarranted

Re: Cosmological Red Shift

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 10:54:11 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 3:34:33 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 2:17:38 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> >>> On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 7:34:29

Re: Equivalence Principle and Einstein Field Equations

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 4:42 PM, wrote: ​> ​ > What is the connection between the Equivalence Principle and Einstein's > Field Equations? How did the former lead to the latter? Why was the man > falling from the ladder so decisive in leading to the Theory of General >