R: Re: Physicists Are Philosophers, Too

( There is a little discussion about Vic's paper in https://www.facebook. com/sabine.hossenfelder) scerir -- 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 an email to

R: Re: A riddle for John Clark

True randomness is not computable by (at least one) definition of random. But a good pseudo-random number generator would not be detectable for many steps (SFMT period = 2^216091). -Brent That reminds me of Saint Thomas Aquinas: Therefore, it is not contrary to divine providence

R: Re: Mathematics is Physics

I forgot to mention Carlo Rovelli here http://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.1v1.pdf Messaggio originale Da: everything-list@googlegroups.com Data: 19/08/2015 8.40 A: everything-list@googlegroups.com Ogg: R: Re: Mathematics is Physics See also Arnold here

R: Re: Mathematics is Physics

See also Arnold here http://pauli.uni-muenster.de/~munsteg/arnold.html Messaggio originale Da: meeke...@verizon.net Data: 19/08/2015 2.17 A: undisclosed-recipients:; Ogg: Re: Mathematics is Physics I like Wenmackers essay too.

R: Re: R: Re: Michelangelo's Stone: an Argument against Platonism in Mathematics

Putnam (in his What is mathematical truth?) wrote: The question of realism, as Kreisel long ago put it, is the question of the objectivity of mathematics and not the question of the existence of mathematical objects. scerir But what did he mean by objectivity? Agreement? We agree on many

R: Re: Michelangelo's Stone: an Argument against Platonism in Mathematics

-It's true that the Platonic universe contains all mathematical structures, including trivial or uninteresting ones, -Not only trivial and uninteresting, but also contrary to the ones that are interesting. Brent Putnam (in his What is mathematical truth?) wrote: The question of realism,

R: Re: MWI question for the physicists...

BTW there is an amusing paper by (the manyworlder) Lev Vaidman. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609006 -- 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 an email to

Re: Carroll's Paradox

From: Bruce Kellett Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 6:54 AM [] But to make sense of this mathematically you have to get rid of the unwanted correlations. Most do this by fiat -- the worlds are orthogonal FAPP. But that is not principled either. Mathematically, we take a partial trace.

R: Re: seizing private pensions

>That's the same as Social Security in the U.S.I suppose the >difference is that Social Security is only supposed to be a kind of >minimal pension and people are expected to have private pensions or >savings in addition. > >Brent Exactly. But here in Euroland the financial situation is

R: Re: Aaronson/Penrose

Precisely. I think there is some degree of confusion around the terms 'local' and 'non-local'. The wave function is non-local in that it refers to the two separated particles as a single entity, without specifying any particular interaction between them. This is a simple

R: Re: Aaronson/Penrose

Bruce: This relates to my current obsession with the universal applicability of Bell's theorem (and other inequalities such as that of CHSH). Consider the statement of the Church-Turing thesis: "the statement that our laws of physics can be simulated to any desired precision by a Turing machine

Wigner (1970) on hidden variables and Bell's theorem

Just an interesting paper by Wigner on hidden variables and Bell's theorem (of course the paper is well known but it is not so easy to find it). 'On Hidden Variables and Quantum Mechanical Probabilities' Wigner, Eugene P. American Journal of Physics, Volume 38, Issue 8, pp. 1005-1009 (1970)

R: Re: Aristotle the Nitwit (an old quote)

"In all cases, Knowledge implies a combination of Thoughts and Things. Without this combination, it would not be Knowledge. Without Thoughts, there could be no connexion; without Things, there could be no reality. Thoughts and Things are so intimately combined in our Knowledge, that we do not

R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

Yes, I see. And there are strange effects, like "unidirectional quantum steering". http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.01679http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.01231 Difficult (for me) to understand this a-symmetric non-locality in terms of MWI. s. Messaggio originale---- Da: 'scerir' via Every

R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

Da: spudboy100 via Everything List Data: 28/04/2016 21.46 A: Ogg: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI Is there any practical technical use for MWI as applied science. Just asking? Dunno. Quantum computers? Maybe there is

R: Q Aaronson

Excellent interview of Scott Aaronson http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/scott-aaronson-answers-every-ridiculously-big-question-i-throw-at-him/ # Yes, there is another one - about "truth" - here http://closertotruth.com/node/4733 -- You received

R: Trespassing On Einstein’s Lawn

a short reviewhttp://physicsworld.com/cws/article/multimedia/2015/dec/15/book-of-the-year-2015 Messaggio originale Da: John Clark Data: 23/04/2016 23.54 A: Ogg: Trespassing On Einstein’s Lawn I just finished ​Amanda

R: Trespassing On Einstein’s Lawn

Messaggio originale Da: 'scerir' via Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Data: 24/04/2016 9.20 A: <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Ogg: R: Trespassing On Einstein’s Lawn a short reviewhttp://physicsworld.com/cws/article/multimedia/2015/dec/15/book

R: Re: R: Re: R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

. I think we all agree that QM-with-collapse entails a violation of Locality. The debate was for the case of the non-single value QM, that is QM-without-collapse, where all branches of the wave are kept "alive". Bruno As somebody wrote "Algebraic nonseparability entails geometric nonlocality;

R: Re: R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

Following the above reasoning MWI (if it is a truly deterministic theory) should violate the locality condition. I doubt this, but if you find a proof, in the literature (or not), I am interested. As I explained, and also give references, it seems to me that the MWI restores both 3p

R: Re: R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

Bruce: I came across the following brief statement by Goldstein et al: Many-worlds and relational interpretations of quantum theory [etc.] # Adrian Kent writes: "Making scientific sense of Everett’s idea is difficult, as evidenced by the many and generally incompatible attempts to show

R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

BruceK and Smitra,my apologies for being obsolete and uninformed, I learned math phsx in the very early 40s (19- that is) and did not need to refresh in my 1/2 c. of a successful RD activity in specialty polymers. Since then (1987), however, I became an agnostic. What reverberates now is

R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

Bruno writes: Alice * (up + down) = Alice * up + Alice * down. If Alice look, as many times as she want at the up/down state of the particle, she will find up (and always up) *and* down and always down. The reason is that once she find up, Alice becomes Alice-up, and that state does no more

R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

>Interesting, but my schedule makes it hard for me to analyse this just >now. Now, if you think you can argue for non-locality from Renninger >type of measurement, don't hesitate to show us. Here the point was >just that the violation of Bell's inequality does not lead to non- >local

R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

Thanks Scerir, but yet again, this paper get the same conclusion as mine (and most people here). With the MWI, non-locality does not imply action-at-a distance. (d'Espagnat would call it non-separability). What I look for would be a paper which would show that in the MWI there are

R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

Bruno (I suppose) wrote: But in the MWI, some work needs to be done (at least) to convince me. I don't even find a paper on the subject, only paper which shows that MWI is local (some more rigorous than other). Do you have a reference of a paper showing that Bell's

R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

scerir wrote: If A and B are two wings of a typical Bell apparatus, i the observable to be measured in A and x its possible value, j is the observable to be measured in B and y its possible value, and if Lambda are hidden variables, we could write Locality Condition p_A,Lambda (x|i,j) =

R: Re: R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

Messaggio originale Da: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> Data: 10/05/2016 18.31 A: <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Ogg: Re: R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature) On 10 May 2016, at 15:37, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: Thanks Scerir, b

R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

### W. Myrvold wrote something here http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11654/ (see ch. 0.8) It seems that he is saying that 'action-at-a-distance' is something that would violate the 'no-signalling theorem'

R: Re: R: Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain

On 14 Apr 2016, at 20:25, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:MWI: "local" or not? There are papers *trying* to explain "local" in MWI. In example: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/504/2/cracow.pdf Th

R: Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain

MWI: "local" or not? There are papers *trying* to explain "local" in MWI. In example: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/504/2/cracow.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/0909.2673v3.pdf http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/quant-ph/0103079 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

Spudboy100: "Brent, to be more precise, I was thinking that every photon event staring from 1 nanosecond ago, on backwards, might still be floating around somewhere. I am wondering also if this data is accessible, in principle?" This reminds me of an old quote: "It is sufficient to destroy the

R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

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

Non-locality and MWI (literature)

BTW, surprisingly the debate about the real meaning of (the two) Bell’s theorems (locality, local causality, predetermination, predictability, separability, determinism, counterfactual definiteness, realism, etc.) is still going on ... Here is some (very short) literature J.S. Bell’s

Non-locality and MWI (literature)

https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03521 'Bell on Bell's theorem: The changing face of nonlocality' Authors: Harvey R. Brown, Christopher G. Timpson there are several interesting points here ch. 9 - Locality in the Everett picture ch. 9.1 EPR and Bell correlations in the Everettian setting etc. etc.

R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

BTW. Frank Wilczek: 'Entanglement Made Simple' Quantum entanglement is thought to be one of the trickiest concepts in science, but the core issues are simple. And once understood, entanglement opens up a richer understanding of concepts such as the “many worlds” of quantum theory.

R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

Saibal Mitra: > And this is the core of the disagreement, you say that the results are > already there, but in the MWI this is false. In the MWI the cat is not > either dead or alive before you open the box, the superposition has > become entangled with the environment, but both branches are

R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

Messaggio originale Da: Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> Data: 09/05/2016 18.50 A: <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Ogg: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI On 5/9/2016 12:52 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:

R: Re: R: Re: Holiday Exercise

>Messaggio originale >Da: "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net> >Data: 03/08/2016 8.49 >A: <everything-list@googlegroups.com> >Ogg: Re: R: Re: Holiday Exercise > > > >On 8/2/2016 11:37 PM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: >> &g

R: Re: R: Re: Holiday Exercise

>> The suggestion that the one consciousness could inhabit more than one physical >> body does not predict telepathy -- it could merely indicate that consciousness >> is not localized to a single physical body, that it is non-local, for instance. >> Or, indeed, that physics is not fundamental

R: Re: Holiday Exercise

The suggestion that the one consciousness could inhabit more than one physical body does not predict telepathy -- it could merely indicate that consciousness is not localized to a single physical body, that it is non-local, for instance. Or, indeed, that physics is not fundamental but

R: Re: If you win the lottery, don't expect to live the rest of your life as a millionaire

>Messaggio originale >Da: "Bruce Kellett" >Data: 04/08/2016 4.13 >A: >Ogg: Re: If you win the lottery, dont expect to live the rest of your life as a millionaire > >On 4/08/2016 11:59 am, smitra wrote: >> On 04-08-2016

R: Re: What are among the world's most important problems to solve, why?

I've been close friends with two mathematicians. The both say, "I'm a Platonist Monday thru Friday. On the weekend I'm a nominalist." Brent "I raised just this objection with the (extreme)ultrafinitist Yessenin Volpin during a lecture of his. He asked me to be

(link) uni-verse, multi-verse, etc.

http://cosmos.nautil.us/feature/120/the-crisis-of-the-multiverse -- 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 an email to

R: Re: Aaronson/Penrose

Messaggio originale Da: "Alan Grayson" Data: 30/08/2016 18.23 A: "Everything List" Ogg: Re: Aaronson/Penrose Here's an article of interest. FWIW, I don't believe the no-signalling theorem puts this issue to rest.

R: Re: Re: Aaronson/Penrose

Messaggio originale Da: agrayson2...@gmail.com Data: 05/09/2016 0.52 A: "Everything List" Cc: Ogg: Re: Re: Aaronson/Penrose On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote: Messaggio originale

identity

it is just a link to a webpage, detailed enough http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/nuc/identity_map/ see also http://immortality-roadmap.com/identityeng8.pdf -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group

R: Re: No gravity / no dark matter

Brent: >That depends on what you mean by "God". As I've pointed out at length, >language is defined by usage and usage says that "God" means an immortal >person with supernatural power who wants, and deserves, to be >worshipped. You want to hijack the word and justify it by referring to >a

R: Re: The Weirdening

John Mikes: KIM (and Brent, Telmo of course) what should we call " W E I R D " ??? Normal 0 14 false false false IT X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

R: Re: What are atheists for?

"Quentin Anciaux": How can you justify logic from physics if logic is primary to prove anything? You're building your lower layer upon an higher layer... It's contradictory. # David Finkelstein wrote interesting papers about the "physics of logic" (and also about "introspective

R: Re: R: Re: A profound lack of profundity

Spudboy100: One consciousness, yourself, of with everyone else, spanning other Everett Universes? Normal 0 14 false false false IT X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

R: Re: A profound lack of profundity

First person, second person, and third person are basically grammatical categories: first person, I/we, second person, you/you, third person, him/them. The third independent person plays a central role in the interpretation of perceptual evidence in terms of reliable conceptual models of the

R: Re: “Could a Quantum Computer Have Subjective Experience?”

Just 2 (old) references On quantum-mechanical automata -David Z. Albert Physics Letters A Volume 98, Issues 5–6, 24 October 1983, Pages 249-252 Abstract An automaton whose states are solutions of quantum-mechanical equations of motion is described, and the capacities of such an automaton to

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Quote. " With our ideal realization of the delayed-choice entanglement swapping gedanken experiment, we have demonstrated a generalization of Wheeler’s “delayed-choice” tests, going from the wave-particle duality of a single particle to the entanglement-separability duality of two particles.

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

BTW, how is this [1] [2] intensionality, or contextuality, or wholeness, or undecidibility, or whatever - and related difficulties regarding the existence of "elements of reality" [3] - understandable within (postulates of) Quantum Mechanics (and especially within ontological interpretations

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Do you not understand that one of the enduring mysteries of quantum theory is the emergence of the classical world from the purely quantum substrate? Decoherence goes a long way towards answering the underlying problems, but unless something intervenes to exactly zero the off-diagonal terms in

R: Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

>> And "recorded" may not bring the right picture to mind. It is [Bruce, I guess] >True. The loss of interference due to radiation of IR photons from >buckeyballs means that information does not have to be 'recorded' in a >concrete sense -- it just has to be available somewhere, even if

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Weinberg looked into nonlinear QM, and it went nowhere. The linearity of QM is one thing that makes it so bizarre. If you make QM nonlinear you tend to make it obey Bell inequalities. LC --- N. Gisin, Weinberg Non-linear Quantum-mechanics and Supraluminal Communications, Phys.

On the reversal of time in natural law (Schroedinger)

Schroedinger wrote an interesting (little known) paper, in 1931. It is a sort of 'Two-time symmetric interpretation' or 'Two-state vector quantum formalism', I mean that 'ABL rule', that Aharonov's stuff. “Über die Umkehrung der Naturgesetze,” Sitz. preuss. Akad. Wiss., Phys.-Math. Klasse 9

Re: Einstein quote

> Il 14 maggio 2018 alle 6.52 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > 'There is no inductive method which could lead to the fundamental > concepts of physics. Failure to understand this fact constituted the basic > philosophical error of so many investigators of the nineteenth century.' >

Re: Einstein quote

> Il 14 maggio 2018 alle 14.17 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 6:20:42 AM UTC, scerir wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Il 14 maggio 2018 alle 6.52 agrays...@gmail.com ha > > scritto: > > > > > > 'There is no inductive

Re: Entanglement

K. Camilleri wrote a very long paper about 'Constructing the Myth of the Copenhagen Interpretation'. But there are many **different** versions on-line. https://philpapers.org/rec/CAMCTM https://tinyurl.com/y9a9odek He points out that the subjectivist view of the role of the observer

Re: Entanglement

> I think Schroedinger and his cat bear some responsibility. In trying to > debunk Born's probabilistic interpretation he appealed to the absurdity of > observation changing the physical state...even though no one had actually > proposed that. > > Brent > > “The idea that the

Re: Entanglement

I know. But no information was extracted from the welcher weg photons before they were erased. I.e., no consciousness "recorded" which way and then forgot the result. I think the act of recording the result, by a consciousness or anything else, is inherently irreversible. If no record is

Re: Entanglement

I believe I'll wait for a better theory. One that includes gravity and spacetime and consciousness. Brent "I saw that far within its depths there lies, by Love together in one volume bound, that which in leaves lies scattered through the world; substance and accident, and modes thereof,

Re: Primary matter

Aristotle distinguishes two aspects of ordinary things: form and matter. Form only exists when it enforms matter. Matter is just potential to be enformed. Aristotle identifies matter with potentiality, form with actuality. "For, as we said, word substance has three meanings, form, matter, and

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

> Il 12 giugno 2018 alle 10.01 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 9:12:41 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 4:36:37 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > > > > >

Shan Gao on quantum measurement (links)

Shan Gao, "The measurement problem revisited", downloadable paper https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11229-017-1476-y see also http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11811/ and http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/13314/ and https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02738 -- You received this message because

Re: Mathematics as the result of natural selection

> Il 18 giugno 2018 alle 2.24 Russell Standish ha > scritto: > There's considerable evolutionary advantage, just not enough time yet > for evolution to have acted :). For some reason this reminds me of a quote: "It is because we have blindly excluded the lessons of these regular bodies from

Re: Entanglement

> Il 27 maggio 2018 alle 6.05 Brent Meeker ha scritto: > > > > On 5/26/2018 1:37 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com > mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 5:08:51 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > > >

Re: Entanglement

> Il 27 maggio 2018 alle 8.37 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 6:21:47 AM UTC, scerir wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Il 27 maggio 2018 alle 6.05 Brent Meeker < > > meek...@verizon.net> ha scritto: > > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: Primary matter

ha-ha! farmers are dumb in Italy too! but I'm kind of surreal farmer, I've studied crazy things in the last 50 years ... because farming is boring indeed. I think that Aristotle's 'hylo-morphism' (matter and form) is an interesting topic. Aristotle - if I remember well - also thought that

Re: Entanglement

> Il 27 maggio 2018 alle 8.21 'scerir' via Everything List > <everything-list@googlegroups.com> ha scritto: > > > > > > > Il 27 maggio 2018 alle 6.05 Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> > ha scritto: > > > > > &g

Kant: something, nothing

An interesting (maybe!) paper about Kant and nothingness, or emptyness https://www.academia.edu/36714875/Kant_on_Cold -- 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 an

Re: Entanglement

> Il 5 giugno 2018 alle 5.05 Bruce Kellett ha > scritto: > > From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com > > > > > > > On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 1:18:29 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > > > > > > From: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM (CORRECTION)

Il 5 dicembre 2017 alle 10.25 scerir ha scritto: Sometimes I read and re-read something Schroedinger seemed to have in mind. “The idea that [the alternate measurement outcomes] be not alternatives but all really happening simultaneously seems lunatic to [the quantum theorist], just

Re: Entanglement

> Il 1 maggio 2018 alle 20.49 Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> ha scritto: > > > > On 5/1/2018 9:13 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Il 1 maggio 2018 alle 17.36 Bruno

Re: Entanglement

Brent: I'm suspicious of these fantasy thought experiments. But however detailed it may be doesn't answer my question as to what it would mean to erase the welcher weg but not the memory that the weg was detected. I noted that this is not like a classical erasure of a memory because in this

time arrow, measurement, superposition

Here below a point made by Asher Peres. -- One can even think of an experiment exhibiting the interference pattern between the cat alive and the cat dead. If such an experiment could indeed be performed, then the phase θ in the state ψ = 2-1/2[ |live> + exp(iθ)|dead>] would be

Re: Entanglement

AG: 'I suppose people will appeal to entanglement and decoherence to try to make sense of how a measurement occurs. Nevertheless, I tend strongly to the view that the theory is inherently irreversible; that is, TIME IRREVERSIBLE IN PRINCIPLE If so, it implies the arrow of time has its origin

Re: Entanglement

> Il 1 maggio 2018 alle 9.40 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 6:57:14 AM UTC, scerir wrote: > > > > > > AG: 'I suppose people will appeal to entanglement and decoherence > > to try to make sense of how a measurement occurs.

Re: Entanglement

As Lucretius wrote (De Rerum Natura): "Incerto tempore, incertisque loci". And the translation is AG something like "at some random time, in some random place" -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from

Re: Entanglement

> > > > > > > > > > > > If two events are space-like separated, I think it's correct > > > to say there is no causal ordering. However, when analyzing time reversal > > > for measurements -- whether or not it exists in QM -- aren't we dealing > > > with

Re: Entanglement

> Il 1 maggio 2018 alle 17.36 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> ha scritto: > > > > > > On 29 Apr 2018, at 08:21, 'scerir' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com > > wrote:

Re: Entanglement

> Il 3 maggio 2018 alle 16.28 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> ha scritto: > > > > > > On 1 May 2018, at 18:13, 'scerir' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com > > wrote: >

Re: Measurements in QM

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v1/34 http://a-c-elitzur.co.il/site/siteArticle.asp?ar=206 https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.22.879 > Il 28 aprile 2018 alle 18.39 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > Is it a settled issue whether measurements in QM are strictly >

Re: Measurements in QM

The short answer is, No. Reversible means unitary evolution. Schrödinger evolution is unitary only with MWI. So reversible implies MWI. And since we don't have access to other MWI worlds, reversiblity is impossible for us "*in principle*. Bruce It seems interesting to point out that Vaidman

Re: Measurements in QM

I have two questions, on a personal note and curiosity. 1) Generally speaking, at what level do you understand the content of your links, on a scale of 0 to 100, 100 being full comprehension? I find them difficult and think I should start my study of QM from the beginning, using the link Brent

Re: Entanglement

IMO Schroedinger invented this manyworlds or manyminds or manywords interpretation. > Il 28 aprile 2018 alle 23.01 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 5:55:16 AM UTC, scerir wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think Schroedinger

Re: Entanglement

-scerir: IMO Schroedinger invented this manyworlds or manyminds or manywords interpretation. -AG: I disagree. He's clearly criticizing the idea that all possible measurements are manifested in reality, which surely suggests other people were advancing a theory he strongly disliked. .

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

> > Il 31 dicembre 2017 alle 17.51 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> ha > scritto: > > On 28 Dec 2017, at 08:50, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

Somebody wrote: "So there are probably grades of consciousness, just as there are grades of ability to communicate. Cats, dogs, and some birds, are quite high on this scale, but jellyfish are probably quite low. But can you rule out the possibility that some environmental awareness does not

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

Brent wrote: A good idea, but I don't see that these "predictions" of computationalism have actually been derived.  I think most of them are aspirational.  For example, what is the proof that spacetime is continuous - in fact what is the proof there is such a thing as spacetime?

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

o's theory > because his theory makes not definite prediction even about the > existence of spacetime. > > Brent > > On 12/27/2017 1:22 PM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: > > > Brent wrote: > > > > A good idea, but I don't see that these "predictio

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM (CORRECTION)

“The idea that they [measurement outcomes] be not alternatives but *all* really happen simultaneously seems lunatic to him [to the quantum theorist], just *impossible*. He thinks that if the laws of nature took *this* form for, let me say, a quarter of an hour, we should find our surroundings

Re: Mathematics as the result of natural selection

> Il 18 giugno 2018 alle 14.08 Jason Resch ha scritto: > > I think a lot of our abstract reasoning ability results from our being > social creatures, and having to create mental models of other > people/groups/tribes, etc. to predict their behaviors under different > scenarios. To guess

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

> Il 3 agosto 2018 alle 0.56 Bruce Kellett ha > scritto: > > From: Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@verizon.net > > > > > On 8/2/2018 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:12,

Re: Realizable quantum states

> Il 31 luglio 2018 alle 5.06 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 12:57:34 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:42 PM Bruce Kellett < > > bhke...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > >

Re: The Ilusion of Branching and the MWI

> Il 4 agosto 2018 alle 23.32 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > AFAIK, no one has ever observed a probability wave, from which I conclude > the wave function has only epistemic content. So I have embraced the "shut up > and calculate" interpretation of the wave function. I also see a

Re: Radioactive Decay States

--- SCERIR; IN YOU OWN WORDS; WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE AND WHY? AG Is the state ψ (i.e. a superposition state) a physically object or is it an abstract entity that merely provides information about the system? This is the question. This mystery is the fact that no physical property is, in

  1   2   >