Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.
On 08 Dec 2012, at 14:02, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King For what it's worth, I think Richard referred to Indra's Beads in connection with this problem. Every monad has its own myriad set of perceptions of the other monads, but these are indirect (are constantly updated by the Supreme Monad). Tre Supreme Monad is needed to keep all of these perceptions correct, Like arithmetical truth will do for the machines/numbers. each from their own viewpoint. Each monad is different. Making God into something which is *not* a monad. He is above the monads, which are more like windows through which "he" can see (and lost himself by filtering the possible). I work like this: anything you say I translate in arithmetic and ask a Löbian machine what she thinks about it. If it is not too much complex I can easily find the answer (thanks to G, G*, etc.). But I can change the definitions, until it fits the most, of course. Up to now: God = Arithmetical truth (a result of Askanas give a trick to interrogate the machine about that, without ever naming "truth". I don't master it, unfortunately and I should search for Askana thesis ...) Monad = intensional numbers = programs = machines, Supreme monad = universal (Lôbian) numbers, machine, ... Bp Inner God = the knower = the first person (or its greatest common divisor) = Bp & p = S4Grz Then intelligible matter = the measure base = Bp & Dt = observable (p sigma_1, cf the UD) Sensible matter = Bp & Dt & p (p sigma_1, cf the UD) That gives eight hypostases, because G, split into G and G*, as both material secondary hypostases. p Bp Bp Bp & p Bp & Dt Bp & Dt Bp & Dt & p Bp & Dt & p Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/8/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-03, 17:13:57 Subject: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. On 12/3/2012 8:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: > RC, > So the entire universe can be in 1p at all times. > RR Dear Richard, How would one prove that all observations that that 1p has are mutually consistent? Unless you assume that the speed of light is infinite, and thus there exists a unique simultaneity (or absolute and uniform variation of the rate of sequencing of events) for all observed events, mutual consistency is impossible. This implies that there cannot exist a singular 1p for "the entire universe". It is for this reason that I reject the 'realist' approach to ontology and epistemology and am trying to develop an alternative. Think about how it is that a Boolean Algebra, which is known to be the faithful logical structure representing a 'classical' universe' (not 'the universe'!), is found to be Satisfiable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_satisfiability_problem "In computer science, satisfiability (often written in all capitals or abbreviated SAT) is the problem of determining if the variables of a given Boolean formula can be assigned in such a way as to make the formula evaluate to TRUE. Equally important is to determine whether no such assignments exist, which would imply that the function expressed by the formula is identically FALSE for all possible variable assignments. In this latter case, we would say that the function is unsatisfiable; otherwise it is satisfiable. For example, the formula a AND b is satisfiable because one can find the values a = TRUE and b = TRUE, which make (a AND b) = TRUE. To emphasize the binary nature of this problem, it is frequently referred to as Boolean or propositional satisfiability. SAT was the first known example of an NP-complete problem. That briefly means that there is no known algorithm that efficiently solves all instances of SAT, and it is generally believed (but not proven, see P versus NP problem) that no such algorithm can exist. Further, a wide range of other naturally occurring decision and optimization problems can be transformed into instances of SAT." It seems to me that the content of any 1p that is real must be at least a solution to a SAT problem. > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> Hi Richard Ruquist >> >> Yes, God is the supreme observer. See Leibniz. >> The supreme monad sees all clearly. >> >> -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everythin
Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.
On 12/8/2012 8:02 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King For what it's worth, I think Richard referred to Indra's Beads in connection with this problem. Every monad has its own myriad set of perceptions of the other monads, but these are indirect (are constantly updated by the Supreme Monad). The Supreme Monad is needed to keep all of these perceptions correct, each from their own viewpoint. Each monad is different. Dear Roger, The analogy of monads to Indra's beads (or jewels) is exact. Each monad's perception (it is a singular integration not fragmented plurality) is identical to a set of perceptions of other monad's, in the sense that one of the Jewels in Indra's net 'reflects all others'. But we have to be careful. If the word "all" is absolute, then the jewels (monads) are identical to each other and thus all monads are One. It is only then the 'all' of the reflections is not absolute that we obtain distinctions between monads. We cannot just consider the ideal case, we must also consider the non-idea cases, such as when monads do not have complete images of each other and thus do not have a global harmony. We are considering here something known as mereology. See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/ A good formal mathematical consideration of this mereology is found in Non-Well founded sets, where the special case of a well founded set appears. The well founded set plays the role of the special absolute case of the absolute 'all' , as in "one of the Jewels in Indra's net 'reflects all others' ". This is the ideal case only such as the case where we can consider monads to have a global pre-established harmony! There is a difference between assuming that a harmony exists and thinking about how it is that such a harmony is possible. Leibniz did only the former, I am asking questions of the latter: How is a pre-ordained harmony possible?! Julian Barbour made the same mistake as Leibniz and had no idea, in the conversation that I had with him, why I was asking him "how it is that Time Capsules came to have a best-matching?". When I told him that his best-matching was an example of a computation of an NP-hard problem, he seemed to be dumbfounded, not having any idea what I was talking about and yet he explicitly bemoaned how long it took for his computer to run a Best-matching for a simple example of a time capsule. Geee! -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.
Stephan, I do assume simultaneity within the monads for the very reasons you specify plus a few more like it makes Cramer's Transactional Analysis instantaneous and Feymann's QED as well. Quantum Electrodynamics is the most accurate theory compared to experiment extant yet is based on particles coming back from the future. Simultaneity, either because of individual monad mapping of the universe or their collective BEC processing solves the QED problem and makes a 1p only universe possible as you so eloquently point out. However, in my theory simultaneity is at the level of a hypothesis even though I present arguments supporting its possibility. Richard On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Stephan wrote: > Unless you assume that the speed of light is > infinite, and thus there exists a unique simultaneity (or absolute and > uniform variation of the rate of sequencing of events) for all observed > events, mutual consistency is impossible. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.
Hi Stephen P. King For what it's worth, I think Richard referred to Indra's Beads in connection with this problem. Every monad has its own myriad set of perceptions of the other monads, but these are indirect (are constantly updated by the Supreme Monad). Tre Supreme Monad is needed to keep all of these perceptions correct, each from their own viewpoint. Each monad is different. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/8/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-03, 17:13:57 Subject: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. On 12/3/2012 8:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: > RC, > So the entire universe can be in 1p at all times. > RR Dear Richard, How would one prove that all observations that that 1p has are mutually consistent? Unless you assume that the speed of light is infinite, and thus there exists a unique simultaneity (or absolute and uniform variation of the rate of sequencing of events) for all observed events, mutual consistency is impossible. This implies that there cannot exist a singular 1p for "the entire universe". It is for this reason that I reject the 'realist' approach to ontology and epistemology and am trying to develop an alternative. Think about how it is that a Boolean Algebra, which is known to be the faithful logical structure representing a 'classical' universe' (not 'the universe'!), is found to be Satisfiable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_satisfiability_problem "In computer science, satisfiability (often written in all capitals or abbreviated SAT) is the problem of determining if the variables of a given Boolean formula can be assigned in such a way as to make the formula evaluate to TRUE. Equally important is to determine whether no such assignments exist, which would imply that the function expressed by the formula is identically FALSE for all possible variable assignments. In this latter case, we would say that the function is unsatisfiable; otherwise it is satisfiable. For example, the formula a AND b is satisfiable because one can find the values a = TRUE and b = TRUE, which make (a AND b) = TRUE. To emphasize the binary nature of this problem, it is frequently referred to as Boolean or propositional satisfiability. SAT was the first known example of an NP-complete problem. That briefly means that there is no known algorithm that efficiently solves all instances of SAT, and it is generally believed (but not proven, see P versus NP problem) that no such algorithm can exist. Further, a wide range of other naturally occurring decision and optimization problems can be transformed into instances of SAT." It seems to me that the content of any 1p that is real must be at least a solution to a SAT problem. > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> Hi Richard Ruquist >> >> Yes, God is the supreme observer. See Leibniz. >> The supreme monad sees all clearly. >> >> -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.
Hi Richard Ruquist No, the properties are outside of spacetime, the objects of the properties are within spacetime. You still don't get it. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/7/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-06, 09:50:18 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > Entities are either in spacetime (physical), > or outside of spacetime (nonphysical). Merely an assumption Roger because you cannot understand how entities in spacetime can have properties that are effectively outside of spacetime. Sobeit. Richard > > Quanta are outside of spacetime (as nonphysical probability fields) > until detected or they hit a barrier, which puts them inside of > spacetime (they become physical such as a photon or electron), > since in that case one can assign a location to them at a specific time. > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 12/6/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: Richard Ruquist > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-12-05, 13:00:30 > Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. > > Mapping refers to the perception of the monads. > The string theory monads exist in space > but have properties that effectively > put them outside of spacetime. > They are not simply ideas > if string theory is correct. > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Roger Clough wrote: >> Hi Richard Ruquist >> >> You still don't understand. You're confusing the map >> (the monads, which you can think of as ideas or information) >> with the territory (physical space). >> >> It is the corporeal bodies of substances that the monads refer to, >> not the monads themselves, are distributed in space, but the monads are >> not. They are just ideas, which as always are outside of spacetime. >> >> >> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >> 12/5/2012 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >> >> >> - Receiving the following content - >> From: Richard Ruquist >> Receiver: everything-list >> Time: 2012-12-05, 09:34:15 >> Subject: Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. >> >> Roger does not understand my argument that the monads of string theory >> are effectively inextended despite they being uniformly distributed >> throughout the universe at a density of 10^90/cc because each monad >> maps the entire universe instantly and they collectively form a BEC. >> In addition they collectively possess Peano cosmic consciousness so >> that there is no need for a supreme monad. Richard >> >> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >>> Hi Richard Ruquist >>> >>> You still don't understand inextended variables. Since 1p >>> is inextended (it involves consciousness), 1p has no size, >>> so it could include an infinite number of universes. >>> >>> >>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >>> 12/5/2012 >>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >>> >>> >>> - Receiving the following content - >>> From: Richard Ruquist >>> Receiver: everything-list >>> Time: 2012-12-03, 08:54:30 >>> Subject: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. >>> >>> RC, >>> So the entire universe can be in 1p at all times. >>> RR >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >>>> Hi Richard Ruquist >>>> >>>> Yes, God is the supreme observer. See Leibniz. >>>> The supreme monad sees all clearly. >>>> >>>> >>>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >>>> 12/3/2012 >>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >>>> >>>> >>>> - Receiving the following content - >>>> From: Richard Ruquist >>>> Receiver: everything-list >>>> Time: 2012-12-03, 05:59:05 >>>> Subject: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. >>>> >>>> Roger, >>>> >>>> Isn't your god an observer? >>>> Richard >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:55 AM, Roger Clough >>>&g
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.
On Thursday, December 6, 2012 8:08:44 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: > > Hi Richard Ruquist > > Entities are either in spacetime (physical), > > or outside of spacetime (nonphysical). > My understanding is that physical refers to entities in public space. For an entity to persist through time requires some kind of private memory and experience, which I would not call nonphysical but rather sensory. > Quanta are outside of spacetime (as nonphysical probability fields) > until detected or they hit a barrier, which puts them inside of > spacetime (they become physical such as a photon or electron), > since in that case one can assign a location to them at a specific time. > If you have sensory physics, you don't need literal photons or electrons as they are the misinterpreted quantitative representations of sensory events through time which give rise to public space. Spacetime is nothing more than scopes which limit sensory perception and motor participation. Spacetime is not the ground of being, rather it is the gaps within which the Absolute monad subdivides into countless interactive local monads. Craig > > > [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] > 12/6/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > *From:* Richard Ruquist > *Receiver:* everything-list > *Time:* 2012-12-05, 13:00:30 > *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. > > Mapping refers to the perception of the monads. > The string theory monads exist in space > but have properties that effectively > put them outside of spacetime. > They are not simply ideas > if string theory is correct. > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Roger Clough > > > wrote: > > Hi Richard Ruquist > > > > You still don't understand. You're confusing the map > > (the monads, which you can think of as ideas or information) > > with the territory (physical space). > > > > It is the corporeal bodies of substances that the monads refer to, > > not the monads themselves, are distributed in space, but the monads are > > not. They are just ideas, which as always are outside of spacetime. > > > > > > [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net ] > > 12/5/2012 > > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > > > > - Receiving the following content - > > From: Richard Ruquist > > Receiver: everything-list > > Time: 2012-12-05, 09:34:15 > > Subject: Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. > > > > Roger does not understand my argument that the monads of string theory > > are effectively inextended despite they being uniformly distributed > > throughout the universe at a density of 10^90/cc because each monad > > maps the entire universe instantly and they collectively form a BEC. > > In addition they collectively possess Peano cosmic consciousness so > > that there is no need for a supreme monad. Richard > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Roger Clough > > > > wrote: > >> Hi Richard Ruquist > >> > >> You still don't understand inextended variables. Since 1p > >> is inextended (it involves consciousness), 1p has no size, > >> so it could include an infinite number of universes. > >> > >> > >> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net ] > >> 12/5/2012 > >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > >> > >> > >> - Receiving the following content - > >> From: Richard Ruquist > >> Receiver: everything-list > >> Time: 2012-12-03, 08:54:30 > >> Subject: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. > >> > >> RC, > >> So the entire universe can be in 1p at all times. > >> RR > >> > >> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Roger Clough > >> > > wrote: > >>> Hi Richard Ruquist > >>> > >>> Yes, God is the supreme observer. See Leibniz. > >>> The supreme monad sees all clearly. > >>> > >>> > >>> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net ] > >>> 12/3/2012 > >>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > >>> > >>> > >>> - Receiving the following content - > >>> From: Richard Ruquist > >>> Receiver: everything-list > >>> Time: 2012-12-03, 05:59:05 > >>> Subject: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observ
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > Entities are either in spacetime (physical), > or outside of spacetime (nonphysical). Merely an assumption Roger because you cannot understand how entities in spacetime can have properties that are effectively outside of spacetime. Sobeit. Richard > > Quanta are outside of spacetime (as nonphysical probability fields) > until detected or they hit a barrier, which puts them inside of > spacetime (they become physical such as a photon or electron), > since in that case one can assign a location to them at a specific time. > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 12/6/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: Richard Ruquist > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-12-05, 13:00:30 > Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. > > Mapping refers to the perception of the monads. > The string theory monads exist in space > but have properties that effectively > put them outside of spacetime. > They are not simply ideas > if string theory is correct. > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Roger Clough wrote: >> Hi Richard Ruquist >> >> You still don't understand. You're confusing the map >> (the monads, which you can think of as ideas or information) >> with the territory (physical space). >> >> It is the corporeal bodies of substances that the monads refer to, >> not the monads themselves, are distributed in space, but the monads are >> not. They are just ideas, which as always are outside of spacetime. >> >> >> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >> 12/5/2012 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >> >> >> - Receiving the following content - >> From: Richard Ruquist >> Receiver: everything-list >> Time: 2012-12-05, 09:34:15 >> Subject: Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. >> >> Roger does not understand my argument that the monads of string theory >> are effectively inextended despite they being uniformly distributed >> throughout the universe at a density of 10^90/cc because each monad >> maps the entire universe instantly and they collectively form a BEC. >> In addition they collectively possess Peano cosmic consciousness so >> that there is no need for a supreme monad. Richard >> >> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >>> Hi Richard Ruquist >>> >>> You still don't understand inextended variables. Since 1p >>> is inextended (it involves consciousness), 1p has no size, >>> so it could include an infinite number of universes. >>> >>> >>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >>> 12/5/2012 >>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >>> >>> >>> - Receiving the following content - >>> From: Richard Ruquist >>> Receiver: everything-list >>> Time: 2012-12-03, 08:54:30 >>> Subject: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. >>> >>> RC, >>> So the entire universe can be in 1p at all times. >>> RR >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >>>> Hi Richard Ruquist >>>> >>>> Yes, God is the supreme observer. See Leibniz. >>>> The supreme monad sees all clearly. >>>> >>>> >>>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >>>> 12/3/2012 >>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >>>> >>>> >>>> - Receiving the following content - >>>> From: Richard Ruquist >>>> Receiver: everything-list >>>> Time: 2012-12-03, 05:59:05 >>>> Subject: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. >>>> >>>> Roger, >>>> >>>> Isn't your god an observer? >>>> Richard >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:55 AM, Roger Clough >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >>>>> 12/3/2012 >>>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - Receiving the following content - >>>>
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.
Hi Richard Ruquist Entities are either in spacetime (physical), or outside of spacetime (nonphysical). Quanta are outside of spacetime (as nonphysical probability fields) until detected or they hit a barrier, which puts them inside of spacetime (they become physical such as a photon or electron), since in that case one can assign a location to them at a specific time. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-05, 13:00:30 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. Mapping refers to the perception of the monads. The string theory monads exist in space but have properties that effectively put them outside of spacetime. They are not simply ideas if string theory is correct. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > You still don't understand. You're confusing the map > (the monads, which you can think of as ideas or information) > with the territory (physical space). > > It is the corporeal bodies of substances that the monads refer to, > not the monads themselves, are distributed in space, but the monads are > not. They are just ideas, which as always are outside of spacetime. > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 12/5/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: Richard Ruquist > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-12-05, 09:34:15 > Subject: Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. > > Roger does not understand my argument that the monads of string theory > are effectively inextended despite they being uniformly distributed > throughout the universe at a density of 10^90/cc because each monad > maps the entire universe instantly and they collectively form a BEC. > In addition they collectively possess Peano cosmic consciousness so > that there is no need for a supreme monad. Richard > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> Hi Richard Ruquist >> >> You still don't understand inextended variables. Since 1p >> is inextended (it involves consciousness), 1p has no size, >> so it could include an infinite number of universes. >> >> >> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >> 12/5/2012 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >> >> >> - Receiving the following content - >> From: Richard Ruquist >> Receiver: everything-list >> Time: 2012-12-03, 08:54:30 >> Subject: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. >> >> RC, >> So the entire universe can be in 1p at all times. >> RR >> >> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >>> Hi Richard Ruquist >>> >>> Yes, God is the supreme observer. See Leibniz. >>> The supreme monad sees all clearly. >>> >>> >>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >>> 12/3/2012 >>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >>> >>> >>> - Receiving the following content - >>> From: Richard Ruquist >>> Receiver: everything-list >>> Time: 2012-12-03, 05:59:05 >>> Subject: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. >>> >>> Roger, >>> >>> Isn't your god an observer? >>> Richard >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:55 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. >>>> >>>> >>>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >>>> 12/3/2012 >>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >>>> >>>> >>>> - Receiving the following content - >>>> From: meekerdb >>>> Receiver: everything-list >>>> Time: 2012-12-01, 18:00:16 >>>> Subject: Re: Against Mechanism >>>> >>>> On 12/1/2012 12:52 PM, John Clark wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Again there is nothing special about an observer in this, the same >>>>> thing >>>>> would happen if nobody looked at the film, or even if you used a brick >>>>> wall >>>>> instead of film, because the important thing is not that the photon >>>>> makes >>>>> a >>>>> record (whatever that is) but simply that it is destroyed. >>>>>
Re: Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.
On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 12:41:22 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: > > Hi Richard Ruquist > > You still don't understand. You're confusing the map > (the monads, which you can think of as ideas or information) > with the territory (physical space). > > It is the corporeal bodies of substances that the monads refer to, > not the monads themselves, are distributed in space, but the monads are > not. They are just ideas, which as always are outside of spacetime. > I would say that monads are more like persons than ideas. They don't refer to substance, substance is how monads represent each other, and they do that through the invention of sensory-motor interruption: spacetime. Craig > > [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] > 12/5/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > *From:* Richard Ruquist > *Receiver:* everything-list > *Time:* 2012-12-05, 09:34:15 > *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. > > Roger does not understand my argument that the monads of string theory > are effectively inextended despite they being uniformly distributed > throughout the universe at a density of 10^90/cc because each monad > maps the entire universe instantly and they collectively form a BEC. > In addition they collectively possess Peano cosmic consciousness so > that there is no need for a supreme monad. Richard > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Roger Clough > > > wrote: > > Hi Richard Ruquist > > > > You still don't understand inextended variables. Since 1p > > is inextended (it involves consciousness), 1p has no size, > > so it could include an infinite number of universes. > > > > > > [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net ] > > 12/5/2012 > > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > > > > - Receiving the following content - > > From: Richard Ruquist > > Receiver: everything-list > > Time: 2012-12-03, 08:54:30 > > Subject: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. > > > > RC, > > So the entire universe can be in 1p at all times. > > RR > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Roger Clough > > > > wrote: > >> Hi Richard Ruquist > >> > >> Yes, God is the supreme observer. See Leibniz. > >> The supreme monad sees all clearly. > >> > >> > >> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net ] > >> 12/3/2012 > >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > >> > >> > >> - Receiving the following content - > >> From: Richard Ruquist > >> Receiver: everything-list > >> Time: 2012-12-03, 05:59:05 > >> Subject: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. > >> > >> Roger, > >> > >> Isn't your god an observer? > >> Richard > >> > >> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:55 AM, Roger Clough > >> > > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. > >>> > >>> > >>> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net ] > >>> 12/3/2012 > >>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > >>> > >>> > >>> - Receiving the following content - > >>> From: meekerdb > >>> Receiver: everything-list > >>> Time: 2012-12-01, 18:00:16 > >>> Subject: Re: Against Mechanism > >>> > >>> On 12/1/2012 12:52 PM, John Clark wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Again there is nothing special about an observer in this, the same > thing > >>>> would happen if nobody looked at the film, or even if you used a brick > >>>> wall > >>>> instead of film, because the important thing is not that the photon > >>>> makes > >>>> a > >>>> record (whatever that is) but simply that it is destroyed. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > But you can do the experiment with electrons too, and the electrons > >>>> > are > >>>> > not destroyed. > >>> > >>> > >>> Good point. If electrons are used in the two-split experiment a brick > >>> wall > >>> probably wouldn't do, you'd need a metal wall. Brick is a pretty good > >>> insulator so you'd end up with 2 small negativ
Re: Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.
Mapping refers to the perception of the monads. The string theory monads exist in space but have properties that effectively put them outside of spacetime. They are not simply ideas if string theory is correct. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > You still don't understand. You're confusing the map > (the monads, which you can think of as ideas or information) > with the territory (physical space). > > It is the corporeal bodies of substances that the monads refer to, > not the monads themselves, are distributed in space, but the monads are > not. They are just ideas, which as always are outside of spacetime. > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 12/5/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: Richard Ruquist > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-12-05, 09:34:15 > Subject: Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. > > Roger does not understand my argument that the monads of string theory > are effectively inextended despite they being uniformly distributed > throughout the universe at a density of 10^90/cc because each monad > maps the entire universe instantly and they collectively form a BEC. > In addition they collectively possess Peano cosmic consciousness so > that there is no need for a supreme monad. Richard > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> Hi Richard Ruquist >> >> You still don't understand inextended variables. Since 1p >> is inextended (it involves consciousness), 1p has no size, >> so it could include an infinite number of universes. >> >> >> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >> 12/5/2012 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >> >> >> - Receiving the following content - >> From: Richard Ruquist >> Receiver: everything-list >> Time: 2012-12-03, 08:54:30 >> Subject: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. >> >> RC, >> So the entire universe can be in 1p at all times. >> RR >> >> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >>> Hi Richard Ruquist >>> >>> Yes, God is the supreme observer. See Leibniz. >>> The supreme monad sees all clearly. >>> >>> >>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >>> 12/3/2012 >>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >>> >>> >>> - Receiving the following content - >>> From: Richard Ruquist >>> Receiver: everything-list >>> Time: 2012-12-03, 05:59:05 >>> Subject: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. >>> >>> Roger, >>> >>> Isn't your god an observer? >>> Richard >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:55 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. >>>> >>>> >>>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >>>> 12/3/2012 >>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >>>> >>>> >>>> - Receiving the following content - >>>> From: meekerdb >>>> Receiver: everything-list >>>> Time: 2012-12-01, 18:00:16 >>>> Subject: Re: Against Mechanism >>>> >>>> On 12/1/2012 12:52 PM, John Clark wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Again there is nothing special about an observer in this, the same >>>>> thing >>>>> would happen if nobody looked at the film, or even if you used a brick >>>>> wall >>>>> instead of film, because the important thing is not that the photon >>>>> makes >>>>> a >>>>> record (whatever that is) but simply that it is destroyed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > But you can do the experiment with electrons too, and the electrons >>>>> > are >>>>> > not destroyed. >>>> >>>> >>>> Good point. If electrons are used in the two-split experiment a brick >>>> wall >>>> probably wouldn't do, you'd need a metal wall. Brick is a pretty good >>>> insulator so you'd end up with 2 small negatively charged spots on the >>>> wall >>>> in slightly different places; >>>> >>>> >>>> How would you get two charged spots? Would each
Re: Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.
Hi Richard Ruquist You still don't understand. You're confusing the map (the monads, which you can think of as ideas or information) with the territory (physical space). It is the corporeal bodies of substances that the monads refer to, not the monads themselves, are distributed in space, but the monads are not. They are just ideas, which as always are outside of spacetime. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/5/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-05, 09:34:15 Subject: Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. Roger does not understand my argument that the monads of string theory are effectively inextended despite they being uniformly distributed throughout the universe at a density of 10^90/cc because each monad maps the entire universe instantly and they collectively form a BEC. In addition they collectively possess Peano cosmic consciousness so that there is no need for a supreme monad. Richard On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > You still don't understand inextended variables. Since 1p > is inextended (it involves consciousness), 1p has no size, > so it could include an infinite number of universes. > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 12/5/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: Richard Ruquist > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-12-03, 08:54:30 > Subject: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. > > RC, > So the entire universe can be in 1p at all times. > RR > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> Hi Richard Ruquist >> >> Yes, God is the supreme observer. See Leibniz. >> The supreme monad sees all clearly. >> >> >> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >> 12/3/2012 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >> >> >> - Receiving the following content - >> From: Richard Ruquist >> Receiver: everything-list >> Time: 2012-12-03, 05:59:05 >> Subject: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. >> >> Roger, >> >> Isn't your god an observer? >> Richard >> >> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:55 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >>> >>> >>> One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. >>> >>> >>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >>> 12/3/2012 >>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >>> >>> >>> - Receiving the following content - >>> From: meekerdb >>> Receiver: everything-list >>> Time: 2012-12-01, 18:00:16 >>> Subject: Re: Against Mechanism >>> >>> On 12/1/2012 12:52 PM, John Clark wrote: >>>> >>>> Again there is nothing special about an observer in this, the same thing >>>> would happen if nobody looked at the film, or even if you used a brick >>>> wall >>>> instead of film, because the important thing is not that the photon >>>> makes >>>> a >>>> record (whatever that is) but simply that it is destroyed. >>>> >>>> >>>> > But you can do the experiment with electrons too, and the electrons >>>> > are >>>> > not destroyed. >>> >>> >>> Good point. If electrons are used in the two-split experiment a brick >>> wall >>> probably wouldn't do, you'd need a metal wall. Brick is a pretty good >>> insulator so you'd end up with 2 small negatively charged spots on the >>> wall >>> in slightly different places; >>> >>> >>> How would you get two charged spots? Would each have charge -e/2? The >>> experiment was originally done with photographic film, so that each >>> electron >>> ionized a silver halide atom resulting in a silver spot on the film. Now >>> it's usually down is some kind of detector that amplifies the effect of >>> each >>> electron. Neither one has anything to do with destroying the electron. >>> >>> the walls would not be the same and so the 2 universes would not be the >>> same >>> and so they would not merge. However if it was a metal wall the electrons >>> would just join the general sea of free electrons in the metal and there >>> is >>> no way even in theory to tell one electron from anothe
Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.
Roger does not understand my argument that the monads of string theory are effectively inextended despite they being uniformly distributed throughout the universe at a density of 10^90/cc because each monad maps the entire universe instantly and they collectively form a BEC. In addition they collectively possess Peano cosmic consciousness so that there is no need for a supreme monad. Richard On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > You still don't understand inextended variables. Since 1p > is inextended (it involves consciousness), 1p has no size, > so it could include an infinite number of universes. > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 12/5/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: Richard Ruquist > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-12-03, 08:54:30 > Subject: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. > > RC, > So the entire universe can be in 1p at all times. > RR > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> Hi Richard Ruquist >> >> Yes, God is the supreme observer. See Leibniz. >> The supreme monad sees all clearly. >> >> >> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >> 12/3/2012 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >> >> >> - Receiving the following content - >> From: Richard Ruquist >> Receiver: everything-list >> Time: 2012-12-03, 05:59:05 >> Subject: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. >> >> Roger, >> >> Isn't your god an observer? >> Richard >> >> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:55 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >>> >>> >>> One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. >>> >>> >>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >>> 12/3/2012 >>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >>> >>> >>> - Receiving the following content - >>> From: meekerdb >>> Receiver: everything-list >>> Time: 2012-12-01, 18:00:16 >>> Subject: Re: Against Mechanism >>> >>> On 12/1/2012 12:52 PM, John Clark wrote: >>>> >>>> Again there is nothing special about an observer in this, the same thing >>>> would happen if nobody looked at the film, or even if you used a brick >>>> wall >>>> instead of film, because the important thing is not that the photon >>>> makes >>>> a >>>> record (whatever that is) but simply that it is destroyed. >>>> >>>> >>>> > But you can do the experiment with electrons too, and the electrons >>>> > are >>>> > not destroyed. >>> >>> >>> Good point. If electrons are used in the two-split experiment a brick >>> wall >>> probably wouldn't do, you'd need a metal wall. Brick is a pretty good >>> insulator so you'd end up with 2 small negatively charged spots on the >>> wall >>> in slightly different places; >>> >>> >>> How would you get two charged spots? Would each have charge -e/2? The >>> experiment was originally done with photographic film, so that each >>> electron >>> ionized a silver halide atom resulting in a silver spot on the film. Now >>> it's usually down is some kind of detector that amplifies the effect of >>> each >>> electron. Neither one has anything to do with destroying the electron. >>> >>> the walls would not be the same and so the 2 universes would not be the >>> same >>> and so they would not merge. However if it was a metal wall the electrons >>> would just join the general sea of free electrons in the metal and there >>> is >>> no way even in theory to tell one electron from another. So the walls >>> would >>> have the same charge and mass. >>> >>> >>> But in an entangled electron pair experiment (EPR type) detecting the >>> path >>> of one electron destroys the interference pattern on the other leg. But >>> also just absorbing one electron destroys the interference on the other >>> leg. >>> To maintain the interference you have to absorb the electron at the focal >>> point of a lens so that you not only don't detect the which-way >>> information, >>> you erase it. >>> >>> Brent >>> >>> -- >>> You received th
Re: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.
Hi Richard Ruquist You still don't understand inextended variables. Since 1p is inextended (it involves consciousness), 1p has no size, so it could include an infinite number of universes. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/5/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-03, 08:54:30 Subject: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. RC, So the entire universe can be in 1p at all times. RR On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > Yes, God is the supreme observer. See Leibniz. > The supreme monad sees all clearly. > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 12/3/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: Richard Ruquist > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-12-03, 05:59:05 > Subject: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. > > Roger, > > Isn't your god an observer? > Richard > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:55 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> >> >> One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. >> >> >> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >> 12/3/2012 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >> >> >> - Receiving the following content - >> From: meekerdb >> Receiver: everything-list >> Time: 2012-12-01, 18:00:16 >> Subject: Re: Against Mechanism >> >> On 12/1/2012 12:52 PM, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> Again there is nothing special about an observer in this, the same thing >>> would happen if nobody looked at the film, or even if you used a brick >>> wall >>> instead of film, because the important thing is not that the photon makes >>> a >>> record (whatever that is) but simply that it is destroyed. >>> >>> >>> > But you can do the experiment with electrons too, and the electrons are >>> > not destroyed. >> >> >> Good point. If electrons are used in the two-split experiment a brick wall >> probably wouldn't do, you'd need a metal wall. Brick is a pretty good >> insulator so you'd end up with 2 small negatively charged spots on the >> wall >> in slightly different places; >> >> >> How would you get two charged spots? Would each have charge -e/2? The >> experiment was originally done with photographic film, so that each >> electron >> ionized a silver halide atom resulting in a silver spot on the film. Now >> it's usually down is some kind of detector that amplifies the effect of >> each >> electron. Neither one has anything to do with destroying the electron. >> >> the walls would not be the same and so the 2 universes would not be the >> same >> and so they would not merge. However if it was a metal wall the electrons >> would just join the general sea of free electrons in the metal and there >> is >> no way even in theory to tell one electron from another. So the walls >> would >> have the same charge and mass. >> >> >> But in an entangled electron pair experiment (EPR type) detecting the path >> of one electron destroys the interference pattern on the other leg. But >> also just absorbing one electron destroys the interference on the other >> leg. >> To maintain the interference you have to absorb the electron at the focal >> point of a lens so that you not only don't detect the which-way >> information, >> you erase it. >> >> Brent >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send emai
Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.
On 12/3/2012 8:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: RC, So the entire universe can be in 1p at all times. RR Dear Richard, How would one prove that all observations that that 1p has are mutually consistent? Unless you assume that the speed of light is infinite, and thus there exists a unique simultaneity (or absolute and uniform variation of the rate of sequencing of events) for all observed events, mutual consistency is impossible. This implies that there cannot exist a singular 1p for "the entire universe". It is for this reason that I reject the 'realist' approach to ontology and epistemology and am trying to develop an alternative. Think about how it is that a Boolean Algebra, which is known to be the faithful logical structure representing a 'classical' universe' (not 'the universe'!), is found to be Satisfiable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_satisfiability_problem "In computer science, satisfiability (often written in all capitals or abbreviated SAT) is the problem of determining if the variables of a given Boolean formula can be assigned in such a way as to make the formula evaluate to TRUE. Equally important is to determine whether no such assignments exist, which would imply that the function expressed by the formula is identically FALSE for all possible variable assignments. In this latter case, we would say that the function is unsatisfiable; otherwise it is satisfiable. For example, the formula a AND b is satisfiable because one can find the values a = TRUE and b = TRUE, which make (a AND b) = TRUE. To emphasize the binary nature of this problem, it is frequently referred to as Boolean or propositional satisfiability. SAT was the first known example of an NP-complete problem. That briefly means that there is no known algorithm that efficiently solves all instances of SAT, and it is generally believed (but not proven, see P versus NP problem) that no such algorithm can exist. Further, a wide range of other naturally occurring decision and optimization problems can be transformed into instances of SAT." It seems to me that the content of any 1p that is real must be at least a solution to a SAT problem. On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Yes, God is the supreme observer. See Leibniz. The supreme monad sees all clearly. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.
RC, So the entire universe can be in 1p at all times. RR On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > Yes, God is the supreme observer. See Leibniz. > The supreme monad sees all clearly. > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 12/3/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: Richard Ruquist > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-12-03, 05:59:05 > Subject: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. > > Roger, > > Isn't your god an observer? > Richard > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:55 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> >> >> One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. >> >> >> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >> 12/3/2012 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >> >> >> - Receiving the following content - >> From: meekerdb >> Receiver: everything-list >> Time: 2012-12-01, 18:00:16 >> Subject: Re: Against Mechanism >> >> On 12/1/2012 12:52 PM, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> Again there is nothing special about an observer in this, the same thing >>> would happen if nobody looked at the film, or even if you used a brick >>> wall >>> instead of film, because the important thing is not that the photon makes >>> a >>> record (whatever that is) but simply that it is destroyed. >>> >>> >>> > But you can do the experiment with electrons too, and the electrons are >>> > not destroyed. >> >> >> Good point. If electrons are used in the two-split experiment a brick wall >> probably wouldn't do, you'd need a metal wall. Brick is a pretty good >> insulator so you'd end up with 2 small negatively charged spots on the >> wall >> in slightly different places; >> >> >> How would you get two charged spots? Would each have charge -e/2? The >> experiment was originally done with photographic film, so that each >> electron >> ionized a silver halide atom resulting in a silver spot on the film. Now >> it's usually down is some kind of detector that amplifies the effect of >> each >> electron. Neither one has anything to do with destroying the electron. >> >> the walls would not be the same and so the 2 universes would not be the >> same >> and so they would not merge. However if it was a metal wall the electrons >> would just join the general sea of free electrons in the metal and there >> is >> no way even in theory to tell one electron from another. So the walls >> would >> have the same charge and mass. >> >> >> But in an entangled electron pair experiment (EPR type) detecting the path >> of one electron destroys the interference pattern on the other leg. But >> also just absorbing one electron destroys the interference on the other >> leg. >> To maintain the interference you have to absorb the electron at the focal >> point of a lens so that you not only don't detect the which-way >> information, >> you erase it. >> >> Brent >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.
Hi Richard Ruquist Yes, God is the supreme observer. See Leibniz. The supreme monad sees all clearly. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/3/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-03, 05:59:05 Subject: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. Roger, Isn't your god an observer? Richard On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:55 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > > > One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 12/3/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: meekerdb > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-12-01, 18:00:16 > Subject: Re: Against Mechanism > > On 12/1/2012 12:52 PM, John Clark wrote: >> >> Again there is nothing special about an observer in this, the same thing >> would happen if nobody looked at the film, or even if you used a brick wall >> instead of film, because the important thing is not that the photon makes a >> record (whatever that is) but simply that it is destroyed. >> >> >> > But you can do the experiment with electrons too, and the electrons are >> > not destroyed. > > > Good point. If electrons are used in the two-split experiment a brick wall > probably wouldn't do, you'd need a metal wall. Brick is a pretty good > insulator so you'd end up with 2 small negatively charged spots on the wall > in slightly different places; > > > How would you get two charged spots? Would each have charge -e/2? The > experiment was originally done with photographic film, so that each electron > ionized a silver halide atom resulting in a silver spot on the film. Now > it's usually down is some kind of detector that amplifies the effect of each > electron. Neither one has anything to do with destroying the electron. > > the walls would not be the same and so the 2 universes would not be the same > and so they would not merge. However if it was a metal wall the electrons > would just join the general sea of free electrons in the metal and there is > no way even in theory to tell one electron from another. So the walls would > have the same charge and mass. > > > But in an entangled electron pair experiment (EPR type) detecting the path > of one electron destroys the interference pattern on the other leg. But > also just absorbing one electron destroys the interference on the other leg. > To maintain the interference you have to absorb the electron at the focal > point of a lens so that you not only don't detect the which-way information, > you erase it. > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.
Roger, Isn't your god an observer? Richard On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:55 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > > > One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 12/3/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: meekerdb > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-12-01, 18:00:16 > Subject: Re: Against Mechanism > > On 12/1/2012 12:52 PM, John Clark wrote: >> >> Again there is nothing special about an observer in this, the same thing >> would happen if nobody looked at the film, or even if you used a brick wall >> instead of film, because the important thing is not that the photon makes a >> record (whatever that is) but simply that it is destroyed. >> >> >> > But you can do the experiment with electrons too, and the electrons are >> > not destroyed. > > > Good point. If electrons are used in the two-split experiment a brick wall > probably wouldn't do, you'd need a metal wall. Brick is a pretty good > insulator so you'd end up with 2 small negatively charged spots on the wall > in slightly different places; > > > How would you get two charged spots? Would each have charge -e/2? The > experiment was originally done with photographic film, so that each electron > ionized a silver halide atom resulting in a silver spot on the film. Now > it's usually down is some kind of detector that amplifies the effect of each > electron. Neither one has anything to do with destroying the electron. > > the walls would not be the same and so the 2 universes would not be the same > and so they would not merge. However if it was a metal wall the electrons > would just join the general sea of free electrons in the metal and there is > no way even in theory to tell one electron from another. So the walls would > have the same charge and mass. > > > But in an entangled electron pair experiment (EPR type) detecting the path > of one electron destroys the interference pattern on the other leg. But > also just absorbing one electron destroys the interference on the other leg. > To maintain the interference you have to absorb the electron at the focal > point of a lens so that you not only don't detect the which-way information, > you erase it. > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.
One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/3/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-01, 18:00:16 Subject: Re: Against Mechanism On 12/1/2012 12:52 PM, John Clark wrote: Again there is nothing special about an observer in this, the same thing would happen if nobody looked at the film, or even if you used a brick wall instead of film, because the important thing is not that the photon makes a record (whatever that is) but simply that it is destroyed. > But you can do the experiment with electrons too, and the electrons are not > destroyed. Good point. If electrons are used in the two-split experiment a brick wall probably wouldn't do, you'd need a metal wall. Brick is a pretty good insulator so you'd end up with 2 small negatively charged spots on the wall in slightly different places; How would you get two charged spots? Would each have charge -e/2? The experiment was originally done with photographic film, so that each electron ionized a silver halide atom resulting in a silver spot on the film. Now it's usually down is some kind of detector that amplifies the effect of each electron. Neither one has anything to do with destroying the electron. the walls would not be the same and so the 2 universes would not be the same and so they would not merge. However if it was a metal wall the electrons would just join the general sea of free electrons in the metal and there is no way even in theory to tell one electron from another. So the walls would have the same charge and mass. But in an entangled electron pair experiment (EPR type) detecting the path of one electron destroys the interference pattern on the other leg. But also just absorbing one electron destroys the interference on the other leg. To maintain the interference you have to absorb the electron at the focal point of a lens so that you not only don't detect the which-way information, you erase it. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
