Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 11:49:08 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 3:16:24 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 23 Aug 2018, at 02:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> From: Bruno Marchal > >> On 22 Aug 2018, at 01:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 23 Aug 2018, at 19:49, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 3:16:24 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 23 Aug 2018, at 02:05, Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >> >> From: Bruno Marchal On 22 Aug 2018, at 01:54, Bruce Kellett >>> > wrote: From:

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Brent Meeker* mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> On 8/23/2018 4:01 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 22 Aug 2018, at 03:11, Bruce Kellett > wrote: From: *Brent Meeker* > Quantum

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/23/2018 4:01 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 22 Aug 2018, at 03:11, Bruce Kellett > wrote: From: *Brent Meeker* > Quantum computers will certainly impact cryptography where

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 22 Aug 2018, at 03:11, Bruce Kellett > wrote: From: *Brent Meeker* mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> Quantum computers will certainly impact cryptography where there's heavy reliance on factoring primes and

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 3:16:24 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 23 Aug 2018, at 02:05, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > > On 22 Aug 2018, at 01:54, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > > > The other sort of infinity, the one which I think you disagree

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 23 Aug 2018, at 02:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be> >>> On 22 Aug 2018, at 01:54, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> The other sort of infinity, the one

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 22 Aug 2018, at 06:03, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 09:43:48PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 8:11 PM Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>From: Brent Meeker >> >> >>Quantum computers will certainly impact cryptography where

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 22 Aug 2018, at 05:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> >> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:43 PM Brent Meeker > > wrote: >> >> >> On 8/21/2018 3:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:00 PM

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 5:03:16 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 2:19:43 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 2:06 AM wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 10:30:01 PM UTC, Jason wrote: On

Re:: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be> On 22 Aug 2018, at 01:54, Bruce Kellett > wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> The other sort of infinity, the one which I think you disagree with, is typical for the  superposition of tensor

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 22 Aug 2018, at 01:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 21 Aug 2018, at 14:53, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: This is discussed since the beginning of QM. Stop talking like if only you understand Everett.

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 21 Aug 2018, at 22:24, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/21/2018 6:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 21 Aug 2018, at 14:53, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> > On 21 Aug 2018, at 02:20, Bruce

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 21 Aug 2018, at 21:25, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/21/2018 2:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 21 Aug 2018, at 07:56, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8/20/2018 9:54 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 09:03:04PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: > We

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 21 Aug 2018, at 21:00, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/21/2018 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> The consequence of the brain being digitally emulable at some relevant level >> entails that matter obeys the laws of the formal mathematics of Z1 and Z1* >> (and others). > > As I

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 21 Aug 2018, at 20:54, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/21/2018 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> If everything is digital, >> >> >> 99,98 % of the arithmetical reality is not digitally emulable. Only >> brain and computers are digital with mechanism. Our body are not.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 2:19:43 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 2:06 AM > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 10:30:01 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 4:40 PM wrote: >>> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 8:02:52

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 2:06 AM wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 10:30:01 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 4:40 PM wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 8:02:52 PM UTC, Jason wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:20 PM wrote:

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 10:30:01 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 4:40 PM > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 8:02:52 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:20 PM wrote: >>> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 3:04:45

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/21/2018 9:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:28 PM Brent Meeker > wrote: On 8/21/2018 9:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:50 PM Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 8/21/2018

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re:: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/21/2018 2:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Aug 2018, at 07:56, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/20/2018 9:54 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 09:03:04PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: We must be looking at some different enumeration of the argument. I have: Clearly. I

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re:: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 21 Aug 2018, at 02:53, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 12:20:19PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >> >> On 8/20/2018 11:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >>When we assume compationalism. Yes. In that case consciousness is >>associated with a digital

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 21 Aug 2018, at 02:20, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 20 Aug 2018, at 13:18, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> You didn't respond to my earlier post in which I discussed the symmetry >>> breaking

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 20 Aug 2018, at 21:35, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/20/2018 11:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> I said you must include the detector, which has certain angle, and an >>> interaction term. Then the uncertainty is only whether the detector says >>> "up" or "down" and there are only

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re:: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re:: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

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

Re:: Many-minds interpretation?

From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 11:36:47 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal* Yes. My feeling is that you do introduce some preferred base. Yes, your feelings are very much at fault here. If you thought a bit rather than go with

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 11:36:47 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > > > On 19 Aug 2018, at 09:36, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > > > You do seem to have got yourself into a bit of a tangle, Bruno. > > What I still do not understand in your view is how can you

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/19/2018 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So the "many superpositions" that you posit are entirely arbitrary, pulled out of the air without any justification. If she measure u, Bob get d. But is she measure u’, Bob get d’ (with certainly, if they have decided to measure in the same base

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/19/2018 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Aug 2018, at 22:59, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/17/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Of course, but that does not justify the idea that all branches pre-exist. But that is not exactly what I am saying. I am saying that some superposition

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/19/2018 3:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Aug 2018, at 21:30, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/17/2018 2:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: We need to do that, because Alice has the choice of which base to use when measuring her particle. That will localise her in different branches: so they

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/19/2018 2:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Aug 2018, at 21:27, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 8/17/2018 2:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Aug 2018, at 20:50, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 8/16/2018 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Re:: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 19 Aug 2018, at 09:36, Bruce Kellett > wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> You do seem to have got yourself into a bit of a tangle, Bruno. What I still do not understand in your view is

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 19 Aug 2018, at 09:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> > > You do seem to have got yourself into a bit of a tangle, Bruno. > >> What I still do not understand in your view is how can you interpret >> >> |psi> = (|u>|d> - |d>|u>)/sqrt(2) >> >> as

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 9:51:56 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 17 Aug 2018, at 19:34, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 9:08:31 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 16 Aug 2018, at 22:37, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, August

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 17 Aug 2018, at 22:59, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/17/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> Of course, but that does not justify the idea that all branches pre-exist. >> >> But that is not exactly what I am saying. I am saying that some >> superposition can be interpreted as

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 17 Aug 2018, at 21:30, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/17/2018 2:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> We need to do that, because Alice has the choice of which base to use when >> measuring her particle. That will localise her in different branches: so >> they all have to exist prior to

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 17 Aug 2018, at 21:27, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/17/2018 2:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 16 Aug 2018, at 20:50, Brent Meeker >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8/16/2018 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 15 Aug 2018, at 21:33, Brent

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 17 Aug 2018, at 21:22, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/17/2018 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 16 Aug 2018, at 20:45, Brent Meeker >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8/16/2018 3:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You seem to reintroduce implicitly some

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 17 Aug 2018, at 19:34, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 9:08:31 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 16 Aug 2018, at 22:37, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 6:45:25 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> On 8/16/2018

Re:: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> You do seem to have got yourself into a bit of a tangle, Bruno. What I still do not understand in your view is how can you interpret |psi> = (|u>|d> - |d>|u>)/sqrt(2) as a unique superposition. It seems to me you can do that because Alice and

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 7:31:01 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 8/17/2018 2:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > We need to do that, because Alice has the choice of which base to use > > when measuring her particle. That will localise her in different > > branches: so they all have to exist

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/17/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Of course, but that does not justify the idea that all branches pre-exist. But that is not exactly what I am saying. I am saying that some superposition can be interpreted as different superposition. When Alice choose her spin direction, she will

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/17/2018 2:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: We need to do that, because Alice has the choice of which base to use when measuring her particle. That will localise her in different branches: so they all have to exist prior to the measurement. Those different branches don't exist.  Alice's

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/17/2018 2:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Aug 2018, at 20:50, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 8/16/2018 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Aug 2018, at 21:33, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 8/15/2018 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/17/2018 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Aug 2018, at 20:48, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/16/2018 3:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Aug 2018, at 21:29, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/15/2018 2:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Aug 2018, at 20:09, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/14/2018

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/17/2018 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Aug 2018, at 20:45, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 8/16/2018 3:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You seem to reintroduce implicitly some collapse in the picture. That’s my feeling, as this is not clear. When measuring a

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 9:08:31 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 16 Aug 2018, at 22:37, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 6:45:25 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 8/16/2018 3:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> You seem to reintroduce implicitly some

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 17 Aug 2018, at 13:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 17 Aug 2018, at 01:05, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> I think this may be the origin of your problem. If we look at a position >>> measurement,

  1   2   3   >