Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 20 Aug 2018, at 19:55, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/20/2018 2:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 19 Aug 2018, at 21:23, Brent Meeker >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8/19/2018 2:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 17 Aug 2018, at 21:27, Brent

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/20/2018 11:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Aug 2018, at 19:55, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 8/20/2018 2:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Aug 2018, at 21:23, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 8/19/2018 2:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/20/2018 2:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Aug 2018, at 21:23, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 8/19/2018 2:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Aug 2018, at 21:27, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 8/17/2018 2:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 20 Aug 2018, at 19:59, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/20/2018 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 19 Aug 2018, at 21:36, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8/19/2018 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 17 Aug 2018, at 22:59, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > >

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/20/2018 2:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Aug 2018, at 21:39, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/19/2018 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So the "many superpositions" that you posit are entirely arbitrary, pulled out of the air without any justification. If she measure u, Bob get d. But is

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/20/2018 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Aug 2018, at 21:36, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/19/2018 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Aug 2018, at 22:59, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/17/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Of course, but that does not justify the idea that all

Re:: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 20 Aug 2018, at 13:18, Bruce Kellett > wrote: You didn't respond to my earlier post in which I discussed the symmetry breaking occasioned by Alice's measurement interaction with the singlet state. I copy

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/20/2018 11:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I said you must include the detector, which has certain angle, and an interaction term. Then the uncertainty is only whether the detector says "up" or "down" and there are only two "worlds" that split by decoherence. Yes, that is why the choice

Re: The Many Incarnations of Bruno

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 5:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > *The point is that with MW, a measurement is any interaction.* Exactly. For once I agree with you 100%. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 09:03:04PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: > > We must be looking at some different enumeration of the argument.  I have: > Clearly. I was referring to the enumeration in the SANE2004 paper, which is kind of canonical: 7) The seventh step introduces the Universal Dovetailer

Re: The Many Incarnations of Bruno

On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 8:11 PM, wrote: > In the MWI, measurements exist! MWI doesn't say measurement can't exist nor does it say measurement must exist, it doesn't even say what the hell measurement means. No theory can explain everything and on the subject of measurement and observation the

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 12:20:19PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 8/20/2018 11:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > When we assume compationalism. Yes. In that case consciousness is > associated with a digital self-referential entity which cannot distinguish > a “bottom”

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/20/2018 5:53 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 12:20:19PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/20/2018 11:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: When we assume compationalism. Yes. In that case consciousness is associated with a digital self-referential entity which cannot

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/20/2018 9:54 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 09:03:04PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: We must be looking at some different enumeration of the argument.  I have: Clearly. I was referring to the enumeration in the SANE2004 paper, which is kind of canonical: OK. I

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 11:18:41 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > > > > > On 19 Aug 2018, at 21:36, Brent Meeker > wrote: > > > > > > But Alice and the detector are not in a singlet state and when you > combine them in a product with the singlet state the result is no

Re: The Many Incarnations of Bruno

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 2:04:57 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 8:11 PM, > > wrote: > > > In the MWI, measurements exist! > > > MWI doesn't say measurement can't exist nor does it say measurement must > exist, it doesn't even say what the hell measurement means. No

Re:: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> > On 19 Aug 2018, at 21:36, Brent Meeker > wrote: > > > But Alice and the detector are not in a singlet state and when you combine them in a product with the singlet state the result is no long rotationally

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 8:21:06 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 19 Aug 2018, at 12:21, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 9:51:56 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 17 Aug 2018, at 19:34, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, August

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 19 Aug 2018, at 21:39, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/19/2018 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> So the "many superpositions" that you posit are entirely arbitrary, pulled >>> out of the air without any justification. >> >> If she measure u, Bob get d. But is she measure u’, Bob get

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 20 Aug 2018, at 01:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> >> On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 11:36:47 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> From: Bruno Marchal > >>> Yes. My feeling is that you do introduce some preferred base. >> >> Yes, your feelings are very much at fault

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 19 Aug 2018, at 21:36, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/19/2018 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 17 Aug 2018, at 22:59, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8/17/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Of course, but that does not justify the idea that all branches pre-exist.

Re: The Many Incarnations of Bruno

> On 20 Aug 2018, at 00:26, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 1:34 AM, > wrote: > > >So your claim is that because the SWE doesn't say anything about > >measurements, presumably the wf continues to evolve forever. > > Yes. You could argue that the

Re: The Many Incarnations of Bruno

> On 20 Aug 2018, at 01:36, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 6:18 AM > wrote: > > > On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 10:51:45 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 19 Aug 2018, at 07:34, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday,

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 19 Aug 2018, at 13:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 19 Aug 2018, at 09:36, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> >>> You do seem to have got yourself into a

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 19 Aug 2018, at 21:23, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/19/2018 2:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 17 Aug 2018, at 21:27, Brent Meeker >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8/17/2018 2:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 16 Aug 2018, at 20:50, Brent

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 19 Aug 2018, at 12:21, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 9:51:56 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 17 Aug 2018, at 19:34, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 9:08:31 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 16 Aug

Re: The Many Incarnations of Bruno

> On 19 Aug 2018, at 13:18, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 10:51:45 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 19 Aug 2018, at 07:34, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 5:27:08 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >>

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 20 Aug 2018, at 13:18, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >> >> > On 19 Aug 2018, at 21:36, Brent Meeker > > > wrote: >> > >> > >> > But Alice and the detector are not in a singlet state and when you combine >> > them in

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 20 Aug 2018, at 10:29, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 8:21:06 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 19 Aug 2018, at 12:21, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 9:51:56 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 17 Aug

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 20 Aug 2018, at 13:31, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 19 Aug 2018, at 13:36, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote >> >>> Choose a base, then you can express a superposition. That is all there is >>> to it. Only one