Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 20 Aug 2018, at 21:35, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > 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

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 21 Aug 2018, at 02:20, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > 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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 20 Aug 2018, at 21:20, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > 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

Some thoughts on the mathematical unfolding of absolute self-awareness

Might be of interest: https://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.com/2018/08/some-thoughts-on-mathematical-unfolding.html -- 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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 21 Aug 2018, at 02:53, 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

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 20 Aug 2018, at 21:54, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 1:19:40 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 20 Aug 2018, at 10:29, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 8:21:06 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 19 Aug

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

> On 21 Aug 2018, at 08:16, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > I've been looking at the Wiki article on this topic. I find that I really > don't understand what it is, or why it's important. Maybe a few succinct > words from the usual suspects can be of help. TIA. Actually, I have very

Church-Turing Thesis

I've been looking at the Wiki article on this topic. I find that I really don't understand what it is, or why it's important. Maybe a few succinct words from the usual suspects can be of help. TIA. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List"

Re: Some thoughts on the mathematical unfolding of absolute self-awareness

> On 21 Aug 2018, at 11:14, Peter Sas wrote: > > Might be of interest: > > https://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.com/2018/08/some-thoughts-on-mathematical-unfolding.html It is a bit long, and I will read it at ease. I certainly can compare this favourably with Plotinus and thus with

Re:: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 21 Aug 2018, at 02:20, Bruce Kellett > wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 20 Aug 2018, at 13:18, Bruce Kellett > wrote: You didn't respond to my

Re: Church-Turing Thesis

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 1:16 AM wrote: > I've been looking at the Wiki article on this topic. I find that I really > don't understand what it is, or why it's important. Maybe a few succinct > words from the usual suspects can be of help. TIA. > > > Bruno provided a great definition and

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 4:40 PM wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 8:02:52 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:20 PM wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 3:04:45 PM UTC, Jason wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 1:44 PM wrote:

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:43 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 8/21/2018 3:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:00 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > >> >> >> On 8/21/2018 2:40 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >>> If I start a 200 qubit quantum computer at time = 0, and 100

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 8:11 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > From: Brent Meeker > > > Quantum computers will certainly impact cryptography where there's heavy > reliance on factoring primes and discrete logarithms. > > > I am really interested in the problem of factoring primes. Will a quantum >

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:28 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 8/21/2018 9:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:50 PM Brent Meeker > wrote: > >> >> >> On 8/21/2018 7:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:43 PM Brent Meeker >> wrote: >> >>> >>>

Re:: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 21 Aug 2018, at 14:53, Bruce Kellett > wrote: This is discussed since the beginning of QM. Stop talking like if only you understand Everett. Well, it does not appear as though you do either. You keep adding

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/21/2018 3:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:00 PM Brent Meeker > wrote: On 8/21/2018 2:40 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: If I start a 200 qubit quantum computer at time = 0, and 100

Re: The Many Incarnations of Bruno

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:29 PM, wrote: >* So Copenhagen gives an incomplete account of measurement, whereas MWI > gives none,* Yes. > *> making the latter obviously superior?* > Yes. Measurement (whatever that means) plays a key part of Copenhagen can take it or leave it. MWI says "if you

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:42 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 8/21/2018 9:03 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 09:43:48PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 8:11 PM Bruce Kellett < > bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > >> wrote: > >> > >> From: Brent

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:43 PM Brent Meeker > wrote: On 8/21/2018 3:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:00 PM Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/21/2018 7:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:43 PM Brent Meeker > wrote: On 8/21/2018 3:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:00 PM Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 8/21/2018

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:05 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > From: Jason Resch > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:43 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > >> >> >> On 8/21/2018 3:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:00 PM Brent Meeker >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 8/21/2018 2:40 PM,

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/21/2018 9:03 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 09:43:48PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 8:11 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: From: Brent Meeker Quantum computers will certainly impact cryptography where there's heavy reliance on

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Brent Meeker* mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> Quantum computers will certainly impact cryptography where there's heavy reliance on factoring primes and discrete logarithms. I am really interested in the problem of factoring primes. Will a quantum computer help? Bruce -- You received

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:00 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 8/21/2018 2:40 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> If I start a 200 qubit quantum computer at time = 0, and 100 microseconds >> later it has produced a result that required going through 2^200 = 1.6 x >> 10^60 = states (more

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 10:00:21 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 8/21/2018 2:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> If I start a 200 qubit quantum computer at time = 0, and 100 microseconds >> later it has produced a result that required going through 2^200 = 1.6 x >> 10^60 = states

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/21/2018 9:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:50 PM Brent Meeker > wrote: On 8/21/2018 7:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:43 PM Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 8/21/2018

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:50 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 8/21/2018 7:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:43 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > >> >> >> On 8/21/2018 3:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:00 PM Brent Meeker >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 09:43:48PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 8:11 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > From: Brent Meeker > > > Quantum computers will certainly impact cryptography where there's > heavy reliance on factoring primes and discrete

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:47:11PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:42 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/21/2018 9:03 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 09:43:48PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at

Re: The Many Incarnations of Bruno

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 3:55:51 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 10:28 PM, > > wrote: > > >> > >> *Whether MWI says anything or not about measurement is irrelevant. >> *Measurement >> exists in Copenhagen and MWI, >> > > Copenhagen has never explained exactly

Re: The Many Incarnations of Bruno

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 7:16:51 PM UTC, Terren Suydam wrote: > > I'm fairly surprised you're not more sympathetic to Bruno's ideas in light > of this. What could it mean for a universe to split if the physical is > primary? > *The advocates of MWI can't explain the splitting as a

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/21/2018 6:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Aug 2018, at 14:53, Bruce Kellett > wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 21 Aug 2018, at 02:20, Bruce Kellett > wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal*

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/21/2018 2:40 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: If I start a 200 qubit quantum computer at time = 0, and 100 microseconds later it has produced a result that required going through 2^200 = 1.6 x 10^60 = states (more states than is possible for 200 things to go through in

Re: The Many Incarnations of Bruno

I'm fairly surprised you're not more sympathetic to Bruno's ideas in light of this. What could it mean for a universe to split if the physical is primary? I'm sympathetic to AG's revulsion of the universe splitting into infinite branches. The one thing that makes MWI palatable to me is the idea

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/21/2018 2:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Aug 2018, at 07:56, Brent Meeker wrote: 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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 3:04:45 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 1:44 PM > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 2:41:12 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018, wrote: >>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 8:02:52 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:20 PM > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 3:04:45 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 1:44 PM wrote: >>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 2:41:12

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:20 PM wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 3:04:45 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 1:44 PM wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 2:41:12 PM UTC, Jason wrote: On Wednesday, August 15, 2018, wrote:

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/21/2018 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The consequence of the brain being digitally emulable at some relevant level entails that matter obeys the laws of the formal mathematics of Z1 and Z1* (and others). As I understand your theory, the mind (not the brain) is a sequence of states in

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/21/2018 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:   If everything is digital, 99,98 % of the arithmetical reality is not digitally emulable. Only brain and computers are digital with mechanism. Our body are not. That is how the non cloning can be proved from mechanism. No piece of

Re: Some thoughts on the mathematical unfolding of absolute self-awareness

> On 21 Aug 2018, at 14:22, Peter Sas wrote: > > Hi Bruno, > > Thanks for your comments. > > It is not my intention to presuppose a physical reality independent of > consciousness. Very simply put, I start with absolute (prereflective) > self-awareness (ASA) as explanatory primitive

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 21 Aug 2018, at 14:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 21 Aug 2018, at 02:20, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> > On 20 Aug 2018, at 13:18, Bruce Kellett