subject:"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.
>>> 
>>> Well, it does not appear as though you do either. You keep adding in 
>>> infinities of observers that are not part of Everett's formulation of QM.
>> 
>> 
>> There are two sort of infinity here. One which I hope you agree with, like 
>> when Alice measure the position of an electron prepared in the state of 
>> lowest energy level of an electron around a proton. The electron state is a 
>> superposition of all position possible in the corresponding orbital. After 
>> measurement she is entangled with that electron, and we have an infinity of 
>> Alice. OK? (I assume of course some classical QM; that might need some 
>> correction when GR is used).
> 
> I am OK with this, as I have said before. This is just the infinity that 
> comes with measuring position or momentum of a particle in a wave packet.
> 
>> The other sort of infinity, the one which I think you disagree with, is 
>> typical for the  superposition of tensor products, like the singlet state ud 
>> - du. Before measurement Alice has the same probability of finding u, or d 
>> for any measurement she can do in any direction. Both Alice and Bob are 
>> maximally ignorant of their possible measurement results. The MW on this, or 
>> a MW way to interpret this, to keep the rotational symmetry, is that we have 
>> an infinity of couples Alice+Bob, with each couple being correlated.  If 
>> not, some implicit assumption is made on u and d, like it is a preferred 
>> base.
> 
> But that is not part of quantum mechanics in Everett's or any other 
> interpretation. It is an infinite superposition that you have added on for 
> your own reasons. I have previously offered some suggestions as to how you 
> could create such a superposition in a conventional way. One obvious 
> possibility is to have Alice choose her measurement angle according to some 
> random quantum process, such as radioactive decay.


That is not why I am talking about. I do not add any superposition, I use only 
the fact that a superposition like ud-du is the same as a superposition u’d’ 
-d’u, so the relative state implied by the first entails the existence of the 
relative sate of the second. By choosing to measure u/d Alice select its 
‘points of view”, and will get a result determine by all the directions (it 
will be completely random. Yet, in all those Old, Bob has the correlated 
particles by common cause. It is almost the definition of the singlet state.




> 
> But the problems with any such suggestion are obvious. Firstly, Alice does 
> not choose her measurement angle in that way, so there is no 
> super-superposition created. Secondly, this construction does not restore the 
> rotational symmetry in any case. You might have an infinite number of Alices, 
> measuring the singlet at all possible angles, but that multi-multiverse is 
> not rotationally symmetric either! All it needs is for Alice number 7,234,826 
> to poke her tongue out and the rotational symmetry is lost! Of course, you 
> could add yet more multiverses to cover every possible deviation of Alice 
> from the stationary state. But the process rapidly becomes ridiculous.
> 
> So this Rube Goldberg construction of additional multiverses of 
> superpositions does not actually restore stable rotational symmetry. So why 
> propose such a construction? William of Ockham will rise out of his grave to 
> haunt you for such pointless extravagance of entities!

Alice destroys the rotational symmetry in all its universe. Not of the whole 
wave, where Alice does not exist as a determinate subsystem.





> 
>> And yes, I do assume locality, if only to illustrate that the MW does not 
>> force the presence of FTL influence (without transfert of information, which 
>> actually would require a third person indeterminacy in Nature, which I 
>> doubt).
>> 
>> It is just a consequence of ud-du = u’d’-d’u’, and the fact that this 
>> implies maximal ignorance of Alice (and Bob) whatever spin-direction is 
>> chosen. After the choice of Alice, and her measurement, neither Alice and 
>> Bob will be able to access a different world. All Alice and Bob will have to 
>> interpret the state like if it was s simple (two terms) superposition. It is 
>> like suppressing the global phase of the state.
> 
> And what is the problem with regarding it like this? Even if you add in these 
> arbitrary multi-superpositions, you end up with an Alice making a single 
> measurement in some particular direction and communicating with her partner 
> Bob, who was always in the same world.

Bt that are two worlds, at some point four, and I multiply them by 2^aleph_0, 
for many reasons.




> All your additional worlds add only smoke and confusion

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 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 occasioned by Alice's measurement interaction with the singlet 
>>> state. I copy the relevant parts of my earlier post here:
>>> 
>>> "The fact that Alice's interaction with the state is unitary and can be 
>>> reversed does not mean that the original symmetry still exists in some 
>>> sense. If I place a large weight at some point on the circumference of 
>>> a bicycle wheel, the rotational symmetry of that wheel is lost. The 
>>> fact that I can reverse the process by removing the imposed weight does 
>>> not mean that the altered wheel is still rotationally symmetric in some 
>>> wider view.”
>> 
>> OK, but when the heavy object is removed, at that moment, the symmetry 
>> is back. Then, when Alice makes the measurement, the symmetry is lost 
>> from her point of view, but the general symmetry of the state has not 
>> changed. It is only not retrievable by Alice (unless quantum erasure, 
>> amnesia, etc.).
> 
> Bruno, you have not made the least effort to understand the point I made 
> above,
 
 Stop speculating on people.
>>> 
>>> I am merely responding to what you wrote. No speculation involved.
>> 
>> 
>> How do you know I did not make some effort. Maybe you imagine that I am 
>> clever or something. You might need to develop some sense of pedagogy.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
> or to respond to it intelligently.
 
 Sop making judgement.
>>> 
>>> There has been no intelligent response. No judgement involved.
>> 
>> That is a contradiction.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
> It is difficult to believe that you are actually discussing this in good 
> faith. You just keep repeating your own misunderstandings of the 
> situation.
 
 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 in 
>>> infinities of observers that are not part of Everett's formulation of QM.
>> 
>> 
>> There are two sort of infinity here. One which I hope you agree with, like 
>> when Alice measure the position of an electron prepared in the state of 
>> lowest energy level of an electron around a proton. The electron state is a 
>> superposition of all position possible in the corresponding orbital. After 
>> measurement she is entangled with that electron, and we have an infinity of 
>> Alice. OK? (I assume of course some classical QM; that might need some 
>> correction when GR is used).
> 
> This assumes that Alice has used a measuring instrument whose interaction is 
> spherically symmetric.  It is because her instrument has an infinite (or at 
> least very big) number of possible results that there are an infinity (or 
> many) Alice's.
> 
>> The other sort of infinity, the one which I think you disagree with, is 
>> typical for the  superposition of tensor products, like the singlet state ud 
>> - du. Before measurement Alice has the same probability of finding u, or d 
>> for any measurement she can do in any direction.
> 
> But direction is chosen via her thought processes which are effectively 
> classical.  Her wf is not rotationaly symmetric. It could be arranged that 
> some quantum random number generator is used to set the detector angle to X.  
> In that case the multiverse would split into many different branches when the 
> qrng result decohered and output X.  But this event would still leave Alice 
> and Bob spacelike separate in the world where the qrng output X.  There will 
> be many branches corresponding to the many possible values of X.  But in each 
> branch the change of the wf when Alice measures the spin along X will be a 
> non-local splitting into "up-X" or "down-X".   At least that's conventional 
> QM.

?

Conventional Everett QM?

That discussion is fruitful, we see clearly where we disagree. It is  on how to 
interpret the many-worlds view of the tensor products, which are admittedly 
weird. 

I think that any interpretation which threats the covariance of the physical 
reality is doubtful. What can happen is that the dream/computations do not 
cohere enough to get any definite global physical reality. But I think it is 
premature to say this, both empirically and theoretically.

Bruno






> 
> Brent
> 
>> Both Alice and Bob are maximally ignorant of their possible

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 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 also have the SANE paper.
>>> 
 7) The seventh step introduces the Universal Dovetailer (UD). Let N 
 denotes the set of
 natural numbers. A function from N to N is said to be total if it is 
 defined on all natural
 numbers. A function is said to be computable iff there is a programme 
 FORTRAN which
 computes it12. Church thesis (CT) makes the particular choice of FORTRAN 
 irrelevant. CT
 claims that all computable functions, total or not, are computed by 
 algorithm expressible in
 FORTRAN. In particular all total computable functions are computed by such 
 FORTRAN
 program...
>>> Yes I understood it introduced the UD and per the C-T inferred that all 
>>> possible computations are performed by it.
>>> 
>>> Bruno wrote,"In that case consciousness is associated with a digital 
>>> self-referential entity which cannot distinguish
>>>  a “bottom” (primary) physical reality from an arithmetical reality"
>>> 
>>> I objected, "But you didn't show that."
>>> 
>>> You responded, "This is directly the result at step 7 of the UDA. And it is 
>>> pretty much required for the Church Turing thesis to hold."
>>> 
>>> So I still don't see why the UD implies consciousness is associated with a 
>>> digital self-referential entity which cannot distinguish a “bottom” 
>>> (primary) physical reality from an arithmetical reality.
>> 
>> It is not the UD which implies this, but just the digital mechanist 
>> hypothesis. A person whose brain is in a vat, with the right configuration, 
>> cannot know that she is in a brain in a vat. Similarly, we cannot know if we 
>> are processed by something primarily physical or not. If I implement the 
>> combinators in FORTRAN or in LISP, no combinators can distinguish the two 
>> from their personal experience (that without observation). Same for the 
>> arithmetical/physical.
>> 
>> The UD is used to formulate the measure problem, not to argue that a digital 
>> machine cannot distinguish an arithmetical from a physical “master machine”, 
>> which is a direct consequence of digital mechanism.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> It seems to me like the rock that computes everything.  The UD is 
>>> effectively running every possible simulation at once
>> So to speak. The universal dovetailer has to dovetail, of course.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> and so is simulating everything at once.  Whether some thread within it 
>>> simulates you or simulates a rock on alpha centauri becomes a matter of 
>>> interpretation.
>> ? If it simulates you, you will feel to be conscious. The point will be that 
>> there is no rock which could ever be simulable by any computer, except those 
>> exloiting directly the infinities of computations below our level of 
>> substitution, like plausibly, a quantum computer.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> The computations of the UD can have no unique interpretation.
>> 
>> A computation *is* an interpretation, made by a universal machine. That is 
>> what the universal do: computation.
> 
> But that doesn't make it an interpretation. 

?

A computation is a relation between a universal machine (or machinery) making 
the universal machine interpreting a program to get some (hopefully) output 
with some input, or none.





> My wristwatch does universal computation.

You can run LISP on your wristwatch? I doubt it. Implement K and S on your 
wristwatch!





> 
>> Then with mechanism, some can be associated to consciousness, when they 
>> emulate self-referential entity.
> 
> Can you watch a running program and tell that it is emulating a 
> self-referential entity or not?


Only those I can build. To be a program computing the factorial function is 
already undecidable. 



> 
>> If curiosity is conscious on Mars, it has to be conscious in the virtual 
>> mars during its training on Earth, and it has to be conscious in arithmetic, 
>> in virtue of the same number relations.
> 
> Exactly my point.  The Mars Rover is not conscious simpliciter, it is 
> conscious of its body and its environment.  The program running on it's cpu 
> could have any interpretation; it is only its connections to the environment 
> that provide a definite interpretation. 

Yes. That is where the nuance []p & p, and []p & <>p come from. 




> The enivronment can be simulated too, but then the closed system cannot 
> provide its own interpretation.  Number relations do not of themselves 
> provide an interpretation.

Yes. Those are higher order dreams, but the physical is bound up by a sort of

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 understand your theory, the mind (not the brain) is a sequence of states 
> in threads of computation by the UD. 

Not really. The mind of a universal (Löbian) machine is what the machine can 
believe ([]p), know ([]p); etc. on herself.

The UD is Turing equivalent with the set of sigma_1 true sentences, which plays 
the role of the atomic propositions.

I assume only K and S. The theology is derived in the mind of the Löbian 
combinator. The leaves of the UD is only the range of the indeterminacies. To 
have a probability, we need the “<>t” default hypothesis: that is why we matter 
needs the presence of p (truth) or at least <>t (consistency). 

The fall of the souls is the passage from truth to relative consistencies.

> These threads are picked out by some as yet unknown statistic

We know already that its logic is quantum. You forget the translation in 
arithmetic. I assume only Robinson Arithmetic (and much more, of course, at the 
meta level).

> that makes them constitute a sequence of thoughts, aka "observer moments”. 

You need to take iso account the self-referential correctness. I limit myself 
to all machine which believes in arithmetic and are correct. 

> Matter and the physical world exists only as an implication or inference of 
> these thoughts. 

Not really, it is a blend of truth, self-representation, and the hard 
mathematical reality.

> Thats your reversal of psychology and physics. Right?

Only if you add all nuances imposed to incompleteness, and then you say “some 
as yet unknown statistics”, when the problem is that we have already three of 
them, obeying to a quantum logic where they should appear indeed. 

The point is that we have no choice if we take seriously the idea that we can 
survive with Digital brain, but also that the canonical theology, through its 
physics, is testable, and thanks to current QM, it fits rather well.

Are you following the combinators thread? I might explain the relation between 
Church’s thesis, the phi_i and the combinators.  I illustrate that 
computability theory is a branch of mathematics.

Bruno

> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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. That is 
>> how the non cloning can be proved from mechanism. No piece of matter at all 
>> could ever be simulated by a computer.
> 
> You contradict yourself within one sentence.  "A brain is digital and our 
> body is not"??
> 
> "No piece of matter at all could ever be simulated by a computer." but it is 
> simulated or created by the UD.

You might need to reread the reasoning. Mechanism is the bet that there is a 
level where we survive a (physical) digital substitution. Matter is the product 
of the indeterminacy on all computations below my substitution level. That is 
not necessarily computable. The range of the indeterminacy is also not 
computable. Indeed, it cannot be said all aberrant histories are eliminated. 
Eventually we need the full quantified qG* (which its highly undecidable)

The UD never simulates “matter”. Matter is a first person plural view of the 
“border of the universal mind”. The universal mind is the mind of the universal 
machine. It is a universal first person indeterminacy phenomenon. The 
mathematics of this has begun with Gödel, Löb, Solovay. Incompleteness makes 
provable into a belief, and introduces the needed nuances to get a 
neoplatonician theology. The measure one logic is given by the arithmetical 
nuances on provability that I have given. The fact that []p obeys a different 
logic than []p & <>t explains why the knowability logic is different from the 
observability logic. That explains where the physical comes from.

About consciousness, all you need to agree with is that your own, here and now, 
is true, knowable, actually indubitable, not provable, not definable. 
That defines a flux of differentiating consciousness with a precise 
mathematical structure, actually half mathematical and half personal.

To simulate matter perfectly, you would need to complete each second the 
complete universal dovetailing. The strange thing: is that it seems we can 
approximate it very well through computation, at different level. The Sigma_1 
arithmetic contains the infinitely many digital approximations of matter, but 
none is correct.

I don’t claim it is true, just that it is testable.

Bruno

> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-22 Thread agrayson2000



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 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 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018,  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:49:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 15 Aug 2018, at 12:36, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 10:22:40 AM UTC, agrays...@
>>> gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 9:58:57 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal 
 wrote:
>
>
> > On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:12, Brent Meeker  
> wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 8/14/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> >> How do you explain interference fringes in the two slits? 
> How do you explain the different behaviour of u+d and a mixture 
> of u and d. 
> >> 
> >> If the wave is not real, how doe it interfere even when we 
> are not there? 
> > 
> > How does it interfere with itself unless it goes through 
> both slits in the same world...thus being non-local. 
>
> The wave is a trans-world notion. You should better see it as 
> a wave of histories/worlds, than a wave in one world. I don’t 
> think “one 
> world” is well defined enough to make sense in both Everett and 
> Mechanism. 
>

 *If you start with the error tGhat all possible results of a 
 measurement must be realized, you can't avoid many worlds. Then, 
 if you 
 fall in love with the implications of this error, you are firmly 
 in woo-woo 
 land with the prime directive of bringing as many as possible into 
 this 
 illusion / delusion. This is where we're at IMO. AG *

>>>
>>> *Truthfully, I don't know why, when you do a slit experiment one 
>>> particle at a time, the result is quantum interference. It might be 
>>> because 
>>> particles move as waves and each particle goes through both slits. 
>>> In any 
>>> event, I don't see the MWI is a solution to this problem. It just 
>>> takes us 
>>> down a deeper rabbit hole. AG*
>>>
>>>
>>> Everything is in the formalism, as well exemplified by the two 
>>> slits. If you miss this, then consider the quantum algorithm by 
>>> Shor. 
>>> There, a “particle” is not just going through two slits, but 
>>> participate in 
>>> parallel, yet different computations, and we get an indirect 
>>> evidence by 
>>> the information we can extract from a quantum Fourier transform on 
>>> all 
>>> results obtained in the parallel branches. 
>>>
>>
>> *No. It's all nonsense. AG *
>>
>>>
>>>
> No it's something you can already buy and use today:
>
>
>
> https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/10/ibm-passes-major-milestone-with-20-and-50-qubit-quantum-computers-as-a-service/
>
> Jason
>

 *If you're referring to my critique of the standard quantum 
 interpretation of the superposition of states -- that a system in a 
 superposition is in ALL component states SIMULTANEOUSLY -- show me 
 where 
 that INTERPRETATION is used in quantum computers.*

>>>
>>> It's in the definition of a qubit: 
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit
>>>
>>
>> *But that's not nearly enough. You have to show where the assumption 
>> is applied. In the case of standard QM, the superposition is written as 
>> a 
>> sum of eigenstates, which are mutually orthogonal. So, as I pointed out 
>> exhaustively with no takers, the assumption isn't used in calculating 
>> probabilities. When you take the inner product of an eigenstate with the 
>> wf, all terms drop out except the eigenvalue whose probability you are 
>> calculating. Is the situation different with qubits*? AG

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-22 Thread Jason Resch

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:

>
>
> 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 11:49:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 15 Aug 2018, at 12:36, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 10:22:40 AM UTC, agrays...@
>> gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 9:58:57 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal
>>> wrote:


 > On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:12, Brent Meeker 
 wrote:
 >
 >
 >
 > On 8/14/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 >> How do you explain interference fringes in the two slits?
 How do you explain the different behaviour of u+d and a mixture of 
 u and d.
 >>
 >> If the wave is not real, how doe it interfere even when we
 are not there?
 >
 > How does it interfere with itself unless it goes through both
 slits in the same world...thus being non-local.

 The wave is a trans-world notion. You should better see it as a
 wave of histories/worlds, than a wave in one world. I don’t think 
 “one
 world” is well defined enough to make sense in both Everett and 
 Mechanism.

>>>
>>> *If you start with the error tGhat all possible results of a
>>> measurement must be realized, you can't avoid many worlds. Then, if 
>>> you
>>> fall in love with the implications of this error, you are firmly in 
>>> woo-woo
>>> land with the prime directive of bringing as many as possible into 
>>> this
>>> illusion / delusion. This is where we're at IMO. AG *
>>>
>>
>> *Truthfully, I don't know why, when you do a slit experiment one
>> particle at a time, the result is quantum interference. It might be 
>> because
>> particles move as waves and each particle goes through both slits. 
>> In any
>> event, I don't see the MWI is a solution to this problem. It just 
>> takes us
>> down a deeper rabbit hole. AG*
>>
>>
>> Everything is in the formalism, as well exemplified by the two
>> slits. If you miss this, then consider the quantum algorithm by Shor.
>> There, a “particle” is not just going through two slits, but 
>> participate in
>> parallel, yet different computations, and we get an indirect 
>> evidence by
>> the information we can extract from a quantum Fourier transform on 
>> all
>> results obtained in the parallel branches.
>>
>
> *No. It's all nonsense. AG *
>
>>
>>
 No it's something you can already buy and use today:



 https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/10/ibm-passes-major-milestone-with-20-and-50-qubit-quantum-computers-as-a-service/

 Jason

>>>
>>> *If you're referring to my critique of the standard quantum
>>> interpretation of the superposition of states -- that a system in a
>>> superposition is in ALL component states SIMULTANEOUSLY -- show me where
>>> that INTERPRETATION is used in quantum computers.*
>>>
>>
>> It's in the definition of a qubit:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit
>>
>
> *But that's not nearly enough. You have to show where the assumption
> is applied. In the case of standard QM, the superposition is written as a
> sum of eigenstates, which are mutually orthogonal. So, as I pointed out
> exhaustively with no takers, the assumption isn't used in calculating
> probabilities. When you take the inner product of an eigenstate with the
> wf, all terms drop out except the eigenvalue whose probability you are
> calculating. Is the situation different with qubits*? AG
>


 These superposed states either exist or they don't.  Which is it in
 your view?  In my view they exist, because that is the only way to explain
 the computational power of a quantum computer.

>>>
>>> *I am not doubting the existence of the superposed

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-22 Thread agrayson2000



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 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 11:49:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal 
 wrote:
>
>
> On 15 Aug 2018, at 12:36, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 10:22:40 AM UTC, agrays...@
> gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 9:58:57 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:12, Brent Meeker  
>>> wrote: 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > On 8/14/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>>> >> How do you explain interference fringes in the two slits? How 
>>> do you explain the different behaviour of u+d and a mixture of u 
>>> and d. 
>>> >> 
>>> >> If the wave is not real, how doe it interfere even when we 
>>> are not there? 
>>> > 
>>> > How does it interfere with itself unless it goes through both 
>>> slits in the same world...thus being non-local. 
>>>
>>> The wave is a trans-world notion. You should better see it as a 
>>> wave of histories/worlds, than a wave in one world. I don’t think 
>>> “one 
>>> world” is well defined enough to make sense in both Everett and 
>>> Mechanism. 
>>>
>>
>> *If you start with the error tGhat all possible results of a 
>> measurement must be realized, you can't avoid many worlds. Then, if 
>> you 
>> fall in love with the implications of this error, you are firmly in 
>> woo-woo 
>> land with the prime directive of bringing as many as possible into 
>> this 
>> illusion / delusion. This is where we're at IMO. AG *
>>
>
> *Truthfully, I don't know why, when you do a slit experiment one 
> particle at a time, the result is quantum interference. It might be 
> because 
> particles move as waves and each particle goes through both slits. In 
> any 
> event, I don't see the MWI is a solution to this problem. It just 
> takes us 
> down a deeper rabbit hole. AG*
>
>
> Everything is in the formalism, as well exemplified by the two 
> slits. If you miss this, then consider the quantum algorithm by Shor. 
> There, a “particle” is not just going through two slits, but 
> participate in 
> parallel, yet different computations, and we get an indirect evidence 
> by 
> the information we can extract from a quantum Fourier transform on 
> all 
> results obtained in the parallel branches. 
>

 *No. It's all nonsense. AG *

>
>
>>> No it's something you can already buy and use today:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/10/ibm-passes-major-milestone-with-20-and-50-qubit-quantum-computers-as-a-service/
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>
>> *If you're referring to my critique of the standard quantum 
>> interpretation of the superposition of states -- that a system in a 
>> superposition is in ALL component states SIMULTANEOUSLY -- show me where 
>> that INTERPRETATION is used in quantum computers.*
>>
>
> It's in the definition of a qubit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit
>

 *But that's not nearly enough. You have to show where the assumption is 
 applied. In the case of standard QM, the superposition is written as a sum 
 of eigenstates, which are mutually orthogonal. So, as I pointed out 
 exhaustively with no takers, the assumption isn't used in calculating 
 probabilities. When you take the inner product of an eigenstate with the 
 wf, all terms drop out except the eigenvalue whose probability you are 
 calculating. Is the situation different with qubits*? AG 

>>>
>>>
>>> These superposed states either exist or they don't.  Which is it in your 
>>> view?  In my view they exist, because that is the only way to explain the 
>>> computational power of a quantum computer.
>>>
>>
>> *I am not doubting the existence of the superposed states; just their 
>> *interpretation* which is key to achieving the postulated speeds of quantum 
>> computers. See comment below. AG *
>>
>>>

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-22 Thread Brent Meeker




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 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 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 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
100 microseconds even if they changed their
state every Plank time (5.39121 x 10^-44
seconds), then physically speaking it **must**
have been simultaneous.  I don't see any other
way to explain this result.  How can 200
things explore 10^60 states in 10^-4 seconds,
when a Plank time is 5.39 x 10^-44 seconds?



It's no more impressive numerically than an
electron wave function picking out one of 10^30
silver halide molecules on a photographic plate to
interact with (which is also non-local, aka
simultaneous).


Well consider the 1000 qubit quantum computer. This is
a 1 followed by 301 zeros.


What is "this".  It's the number possible phase
relations between the 1000 qubits.  If we send a 1000
electrons toward our photographic plate through a 1000
holes the Schrodinger wave function approaching the
photographic plate then also has 1e301 different phase
relations.  The difference is only that we don't control
them so as to cancel out "wrong answers".



The reason I think the quantum computer example is important
to consider is because when we control them to produce a
useful result, it becomes that much harder to deny the
reality and significance of the intermediate states.


Which is why I'm pointing that, while important from our view
of it as a computation, from a physical viewpoint it is
nothing unusual.  If I poked a 100 pinholes in a screen and
shone my laser pointer on it there would the same number of
"intermediate states" between the screen and a photo detector.


Okay.  But this example tends to ignore the intermediate steps of
the computation, in a way that is easier to look over.



For instance, we can verify the result of a Shor calculation
for the factorization of a large prime.  We can't so easily
verify the statistics of the 1e301 phase relations are what
they should be.


This is not only over a googol^2 times the number of
silver halide molecules in your plate, but more than a
googol times the 10^80 atoms in the observable universe.

What is it, in your mind, that is able to track and
consistently compute over these 10^301 states, in this
system composed of only 1000 atoms?



Are you aware of anything other than many-worlds view that
can account for this?


I don't see anyway a many-worlds view can account for it. 
All those qubits have to be entangled and interfere in order
to arrive at an answer.  So they all have to be in the same
world.  Your numerology is just counting interference
relations in this world, they don't imply some events in
other worlds.


Where are these interference relations existing?  We've already
established there are not enough atoms to account for all the states


That's because the states aren't things, they are entanglements,
i.e. relations between things.  That's why the numbers are in
exponential in the number of things. They are not things
themselves, so it's specious to compare them to atoms.


in the whole observable universe (one world), nor are there
enough Plank times to account for iterating over every possible
state involved in the computation in (one world). So where are
all of these states existing and being processed?





Also note that you can only read off 200bits of
information (c.f. Holevo's theorem).


True, but that is irrelevant to the number of
intermediate

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-21 Thread Russell Standish

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 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
> >>      computer help?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm
> >>
> >> New cryptographic algorithms are being developed which will presumably
> be
> >> immune to quantum computers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> >> Post-quantum_cryptography
> >>
> >> All current asymmetric cryptography in wide use today (for verifying
> websites
> >> you go to are trusted, that software packages are correct, in securing
> >> confidential information between you and your bank and e-mail provider,
> e.g. in
> >> digital signature, public key encryption, and key agreement protocols)
> are
> >> vulnerable. This includes not only RSA whose security rests on 
> factoring
> >> primes, but also the discrete logarithm problem which is the foundation
> of
> >> Diffie-Hellman key exchange and elliptic curve cryptography.
> >>
> >> Jason
> > Actually, you are missing Bruce's understated ridicule... It's a very
> > Aussie sense of humour, so I don't blame you. Nobody should be
> > interested in factoring prime numbers, because prime numbers cannot be
> > factored - by definition. Of course, what you mean is factoring
> > numbers that are the product of two large prime numbers, which is an
> > important cryptographical problem. I'm sure Bruce knows that too, but
> > couldn't resist poking a bit of fun into the conversation.
> >
> > Cheers
> 
> So where's your Aussie sense of humor, Russell?  I wanted to see how
> long before Jason caught on.
> 
> 
> 
> It would have gone on for quite some time, I assure you. ;-)
> 
> Jason 
>

It's not sport to tease someone mercilessly - I felt it was time to
put Jason out of misery.


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 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
> >>  computer help?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm
> >>
> >> New cryptographic algorithms are being developed which will presumably
> be
> >> immune to quantum computers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> >> Post-quantum_cryptography
> >>
> >> All current asymmetric cryptography in wide use today (for verifying
> websites
> >> you go to are trusted, that software packages are correct, in securing
> >> confidential information between you and your bank and e-mail provider,
> e.g. in
> >> digital signature, public key encryption, and key agreement protocols)
> are
> >> vulnerable. This includes not only RSA whose security rests on factoring
> >> primes, but also the discrete logarithm problem which is the foundation
> of
> >> Diffie-Hellman key exchange and elliptic curve cryptography.
> >>
> >> Jason
> > Actually, you are missing Bruce's understated ridicule... It's a very
> > Aussie sense of humour, so I don't blame you. Nobody should be
> > interested in factoring prime numbers, because prime numbers cannot be
> > factored - by definition. Of course, what you mean is factoring
> > numbers that are the product of two large prime numbers, which is an
> > important cryptographical problem. I'm sure Bruce knows that too, but
> > couldn't resist poking a bit of fun into the conversation.
> >
> > Cheers
>
> So where's your Aussie sense of humor, Russell?  I wanted to see how
> long before Jason caught on.
>
>
It would have gone on for quite some time, I assure you. ;-)

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
> 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 100 microseconds even if they changed their state every
> Plank time (5.39121 x 10^-44 seconds), then physically speaking it *
> *must** have been simultaneous.  I don't see any other way to explain
> this result.  How can 200 things explore 10^60 states in 10^-4 seconds,
> when a Plank time is 5.39 x 10^-44 seconds?
>

 It's no more impressive numerically than an electron wave function
 picking out one of 10^30 silver halide molecules on a photographic plate to
 interact with (which is also non-local, aka simultaneous).


>>> Well consider the 1000 qubit quantum computer. This is a 1 followed by
>>> 301 zeros.
>>>
>>>
>>> What is "this".  It's the number possible phase relations between the
>>> 1000 qubits.  If we send a 1000 electrons toward our photographic plate
>>> through a 1000 holes the Schrodinger wave function approaching the
>>> photographic plate then also has 1e301 different phase relations.  The
>>> difference is only that we don't control them so as to cancel out "wrong
>>> answers".
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The reason I think the quantum computer example is important to consider
>> is because when we control them to produce a useful result, it becomes that
>> much harder to deny the reality and significance of the intermediate
>> states.
>>
>>
>> Which is why I'm pointing that, while important from our view of it as a
>> computation, from a physical viewpoint it is nothing unusual.  If I poked a
>> 100 pinholes in a screen and shone my laser pointer on it there would the
>> same number of "intermediate states" between the screen and a photo
>> detector.
>>
>
> Okay.  But this example tends to ignore the intermediate steps of the
> computation, in a way that is easier to look over.
>
>
>>
>> For instance, we can verify the result of a Shor calculation for the
>> factorization of a large prime.  We can't so easily verify the statistics
>> of the 1e301 phase relations are what they should be.
>>
>>
>>> This is not only over a googol^2 times the number of silver halide
>>> molecules in your plate, but more than a googol times the 10^80 atoms in
>>> the observable universe.
>>>
>>> What is it, in your mind, that is able to track and consistently compute
>>> over these 10^301 states, in this system composed of only 1000 atoms?
>>>
>>>
>> Are you aware of anything other than many-worlds view that can account
>> for this?
>>
>>
>> I don't see anyway a many-worlds view can account for it.  All those
>> qubits have to be entangled and interfere in order to arrive at an answer.
>> So they all have to be in the same world.  Your numerology is just counting
>> interference relations in this world, they don't imply some events in other
>> worlds.
>>
>
> Where are these interference relations existing?  We've already
> established there are not enough atoms to account for all the states
>
>
> That's because the states aren't things, they are entanglements, i.e.
> relations between things.  That's why the numbers are in exponential in the
> number of things.  They are not things themselves, so it's specious to
> compare them to atoms.
>
> in the whole observable universe (one world), nor are there enough Plank
> times to account for iterating over every possible state involved in the
> computation in (one world). So where are all of these states existing and
> being processed?
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
 Also note that you can only read off 200bits of information (c.f.
 Holevo's theorem).


>>> True, but that is irrelevant to the number of intermediate states
>>> necessary for the computation that is performed to arrive at the final and
>>> correct answer.
>>>
>>>
>>> But you have to put in 2^200 complex numbers to initiate your qubits.
>>> So you're putting in a lot more information than you're getting out.
>>>
>>
>> You just initialize each of the 200 qubits to be in a superposition.
>>
>>
>>> Those "intermediate states" are just interference patterns in the
>>> computer, not some inter-dimensional information flow.
>>>
>>
>> What is interference, but information flow between different parts of the
>> wave function: other "branches" of the superposition making their presence
>> known to us by causing different outcomes to

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 factoring primes and discrete logarithms.


 I am really interested in the problem of factoring primes. Will a quantum
 computer help?



Yes, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm

New cryptographic algorithms are being developed which will presumably be
immune to quantum computers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Post-quantum_cryptography

All current asymmetric cryptography in wide use today (for verifying websites
you go to are trusted, that software packages are correct, in securing
confidential information between you and your bank and e-mail provider, e.g. in
digital signature, public key encryption, and key agreement protocols) are
vulnerable. This includes not only RSA whose security rests on factoring
primes, but also the discrete logarithm problem which is the foundation of
Diffie-Hellman key exchange and elliptic curve cryptography.

Jason

Actually, you are missing Bruce's understated ridicule... It's a very
Aussie sense of humour, so I don't blame you. Nobody should be
interested in factoring prime numbers, because prime numbers cannot be
factored - by definition. Of course, what you mean is factoring
numbers that are the product of two large prime numbers, which is an
important cryptographical problem. I'm sure Bruce knows that too, but
couldn't resist poking a bit of fun into the conversation.

Cheers


So where's your Aussie sense of humor, Russell?  I wanted to see how 
long before Jason caught on.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 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 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 100 microseconds even
if they changed their state every Plank time
(5.39121 x 10^-44 seconds), then physically
speaking it **must** have been simultaneous.  I
don't see any other way to explain this result. 
How can 200 things explore 10^60 states in 10^-4
seconds, when a Plank time is 5.39 x 10^-44 seconds?



It's no more impressive numerically than an electron
wave function picking out one of 10^30 silver halide
molecules on a photographic plate to interact with
(which is also non-local, aka simultaneous).


Well consider the 1000 qubit quantum computer. This is a 1
followed by 301 zeros.


What is "this".  It's the number possible phase relations
between the 1000 qubits.  If we send a 1000 electrons toward
our photographic plate through a 1000 holes the Schrodinger
wave function approaching the photographic plate then also
has 1e301 different phase relations.  The difference is only
that we don't control them so as to cancel out "wrong answers".



The reason I think the quantum computer example is important to
consider is because when we control them to produce a useful
result, it becomes that much harder to deny the reality and
significance of the intermediate states.


Which is why I'm pointing that, while important from our view of
it as a computation, from a physical viewpoint it is nothing
unusual.  If I poked a 100 pinholes in a screen and shone my laser
pointer on it there would the same number of "intermediate states"
between the screen and a photo detector.


Okay.  But this example tends to ignore the intermediate steps of the 
computation, in a way that is easier to look over.




For instance, we can verify the result of a Shor calculation for
the factorization of a large prime.  We can't so easily verify
the statistics of the 1e301 phase relations are what they should be.


This is not only over a googol^2 times the number of silver
halide molecules in your plate, but more than a googol times
the 10^80 atoms in the observable universe.

What is it, in your mind, that is able to track and
consistently compute over these 10^301 states, in this
system composed of only 1000 atoms?



Are you aware of anything other than many-worlds view that can
account for this?


I don't see anyway a many-worlds view can account for it. All
those qubits have to be entangled and interfere in order to arrive
at an answer.  So they all have to be in the same world.  Your
numerology is just counting interference relations in this world,
they don't imply some events in other worlds.


Where are these interference relations existing?  We've already 
established there are not enough atoms to account for all the states


That's because the states aren't things, they are entanglements, i.e. 
relations between things.  That's why the numbers are in exponential in 
the number of things.  They are not things themselves, so it's specious 
to compare them to atoms.


in the whole observable universe (one world), nor are there enough 
Plank times to account for iterating over every possible state 
involved in the computation in (one world). So where are all of these 
states existing and being processed?






Also note that you can only read off 200bits of
information (c.f. Holevo's theorem).


True, but that is irrelevant to the number of intermediate
states necessary for the computation that is performed to
arrive at the final and correct answer.


But you have to put in 2^200 complex numbers to initiate your
qubits.  So you're putting in a lot more information than
you're getting out.


You just initialize each of the 200 qubits to be in a superposition.

Those "intermediate states" are just interference patterns in
the computer, not some inter-dimensional information flow.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-21 Thread Russell Standish

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 logarithms.
> 
> 
> I am really interested in the problem of factoring primes. Will a quantum
> computer help?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm
> 
> New cryptographic algorithms are being developed which will presumably be
> immune to quantum computers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Post-quantum_cryptography
> 
> All current asymmetric cryptography in wide use today (for verifying websites
> you go to are trusted, that software packages are correct, in securing
> confidential information between you and your bank and e-mail provider, e.g. 
> in
> digital signature, public key encryption, and key agreement protocols) are
> vulnerable. This includes not only RSA whose security rests on factoring
> primes, but also the discrete logarithm problem which is the foundation of
> Diffie-Hellman key exchange and elliptic curve cryptography.
> 
> Jason

Actually, you are missing Bruce's understated ridicule... It's a very
Aussie sense of humour, so I don't blame you. Nobody should be
interested in factoring prime numbers, because prime numbers cannot be
factored - by definition. Of course, what you mean is factoring
numbers that are the product of two large prime numbers, which is an
important cryptographical problem. I'm sure Bruce knows that too, but
couldn't resist poking a bit of fun into the conversation.

Cheers


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 100 microseconds even if they changed their state every
 Plank time (5.39121 x 10^-44 seconds), then physically speaking it *
 *must** have been simultaneous.  I don't see any other way to explain
 this result.  How can 200 things explore 10^60 states in 10^-4 seconds,
 when a Plank time is 5.39 x 10^-44 seconds?

>>>
>>> It's no more impressive numerically than an electron wave function
>>> picking out one of 10^30 silver halide molecules on a photographic plate to
>>> interact with (which is also non-local, aka simultaneous).
>>>
>>>
>> Well consider the 1000 qubit quantum computer. This is a 1 followed by
>> 301 zeros.
>>
>>
>> What is "this".  It's the number possible phase relations between the
>> 1000 qubits.  If we send a 1000 electrons toward our photographic plate
>> through a 1000 holes the Schrodinger wave function approaching the
>> photographic plate then also has 1e301 different phase relations.  The
>> difference is only that we don't control them so as to cancel out "wrong
>> answers".
>>
>>
>
> The reason I think the quantum computer example is important to consider
> is because when we control them to produce a useful result, it becomes that
> much harder to deny the reality and significance of the intermediate
> states.
>
>
> Which is why I'm pointing that, while important from our view of it as a
> computation, from a physical viewpoint it is nothing unusual.  If I poked a
> 100 pinholes in a screen and shone my laser pointer on it there would the
> same number of "intermediate states" between the screen and a photo
> detector.
>

Okay.  But this example tends to ignore the intermediate steps of the
computation, in a way that is easier to look over.


>
> For instance, we can verify the result of a Shor calculation for the
> factorization of a large prime.  We can't so easily verify the statistics
> of the 1e301 phase relations are what they should be.
>
>
>> This is not only over a googol^2 times the number of silver halide
>> molecules in your plate, but more than a googol times the 10^80 atoms in
>> the observable universe.
>>
>> What is it, in your mind, that is able to track and consistently compute
>> over these 10^301 states, in this system composed of only 1000 atoms?
>>
>>
> Are you aware of anything other than many-worlds view that can account for
> this?
>
>
> I don't see anyway a many-worlds view can account for it.  All those
> qubits have to be entangled and interfere in order to arrive at an answer.
> So they all have to be in the same world.  Your numerology is just counting
> interference relations in this world, they don't imply some events in other
> worlds.
>

Where are these interference relations existing?  We've already established
there are not enough atoms to account for all the states in the whole
observable universe (one world), nor are there enough Plank times to
account for iterating over every possible state involved in the computation
in (one world). So where are all of these states existing and being
processed?


>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Also note that you can only read off 200bits of information (c.f.
>>> Holevo's theorem).
>>>
>>>
>> True, but that is irrelevant to the number of intermediate states
>> necessary for the computation that is performed to arrive at the final and
>> correct answer.
>>
>>
>> But you have to put in 2^200 complex numbers to initiate your qubits.  So
>> you're putting in a lot more information than you're getting out.
>>
>
> You just initialize each of the 200 qubits to be in a superposition.
>
>
>> Those "intermediate states" are just interference patterns in the
>> computer, not some inter-dimensional information flow.
>>
>
> What is interference, but information flow between different parts of the
> wave function: other "branches" of the superposition making their presence
> known to us by causing different outcomes to manifest in our own branch.
>
>
>> Also, many quantum algorithms only give you an answer that is probably
>> correct.  So you have to run it multiple times to have confidence in the
>> result.
>>
>
> I would say it depends on the algorithm and the precision of the
> measurement and construction of the computer.  If your algorithm computes
> the square of a randomly initialized set of qubits, then the only answer
> you should get (assuming perfect construction of the quantum computer)
> after measurement

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, 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 100 microseconds even if they changed their state every
 Plank time (5.39121 x 10^-44 seconds), then physically speaking it *
 *must** have been simultaneous.  I don't see any other way to explain
 this result.  How can 200 things explore 10^60 states in 10^-4 seconds,
 when a Plank time is 5.39 x 10^-44 seconds?

>>>
>>> It's no more impressive numerically than an electron wave function
>>> picking out one of 10^30 silver halide molecules on a photographic plate to
>>> interact with (which is also non-local, aka simultaneous).
>>>
>>>
>> Well consider the 1000 qubit quantum computer. This is a 1 followed by
>> 301 zeros.
>>
>>
>> What is "this".  It's the number possible phase relations between the
>> 1000 qubits.  If we send a 1000 electrons toward our photographic plate
>> through a 1000 holes the Schrodinger wave function approaching the
>> photographic plate then also has 1e301 different phase relations.  The
>> difference is only that we don't control them so as to cancel out "wrong
>> answers".
>>
>>
>
> The reason I think the quantum computer example is important to consider
> is because when we control them to produce a useful result, it becomes that
> much harder to deny the reality and significance of the intermediate
> states. For instance, we can verify the result of a Shor calculation for
> the factorization of a large prime.
>
>
> Someone else is interested in factorizing primes?
>

My background is more in algorithms and cryptography, than physics or
quantum mechanics.


>
>   We can't so easily verify the statistics of the 1e301 phase relations
> are what they should be.
>
>
>> This is not only over a googol^2 times the number of silver halide
>> molecules in your plate, but more than a googol times the 10^80 atoms in
>> the observable universe.
>>
>> What is it, in your mind, that is able to track and consistently compute
>> over these 10^301 states, in this system composed of only 1000 atoms?
>>
>>
> Are you aware of anything other than many-worlds view that can account for
> this?
>
>
> Yes.
>

We're listening.


>
> Also note that you can only read off 200bits of information (c.f. Holevo's
>>> theorem).
>>>
>>>
>> True, but that is irrelevant to the number of intermediate states
>> necessary for the computation that is performed to arrive at the final and
>> correct answer.
>>
>>
>> But you have to put in 2^200 complex numbers to initiate your qubits.  So
>> you're putting in a lot more information than you're getting out.
>>
>
> You just initialize each of the 200 qubits to be in a superposition.
>
>
>> Those "intermediate states" are just interference patterns in the
>> computer, not some inter-dimensional information flow.
>>
>
> What is interference, but information flow between different parts of the
> wave function: other "branches" of the superposition making their presence
> known to us by causing different outcomes to manifest in our own branch.
>
>
> The superposition exists in our branch.
>

That is one way of using the term branch.  Another is that a superposition
is when multiple branches can interfere because everything else about them
is the same.


>
> Also, many quantum algorithms only give you an answer that is probably
>> correct.  So you have to run it multiple times to have confidence in the
>> result.
>>
>
> I would say it depends on the algorithm and the precision of the
> measurement and construction of the computer.  If your algorithm computes
> the square of a randomly initialized set of qubits, then the only answer
> you should get (assuming perfect construction of the quantum computer)
> after measurement will be a perfect square.
>
>
>>
>> Quantum computers will certainly impact cryptography where there's heavy
>> reliance on factoring primes and discrete logarithms.  They should be able
>> to solve protein folding and similar problems that are out of reach of
>> classical computers.  But they're not a magic bullet.  Most problems will
>> still be solved faster by conventional von Neumann computers or by
>> specialized neural nets.  One reason is that even though a quantum
>> algorithm is faster in the limit of large problem size, it may still be
>> slower for the problem size of interest.  It's the same problem that shows
>> up in classical algorithms; for example the Coppersmith-Winograd algorithm
>> for matrix multiplication takes O(n^2.375) compared to the Strassen
>>

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 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 100 microseconds even if they changed their
state every Plank time (5.39121 x 10^-44 seconds), then
physically speaking it **must** have been simultaneous. 
I don't see any other way to explain this result. How
can 200 things explore 10^60 states in 10^-4 seconds,
when a Plank time is 5.39 x 10^-44 seconds?



It's no more impressive numerically than an electron wave
function picking out one of 10^30 silver halide molecules on
a photographic plate to interact with (which is also
non-local, aka simultaneous).


Well consider the 1000 qubit quantum computer. This is a 1
followed by 301 zeros.


What is "this".  It's the number possible phase relations between
the 1000 qubits.  If we send a 1000 electrons toward our
photographic plate through a 1000 holes the Schrodinger wave
function approaching the photographic plate then also has 1e301
different phase relations.  The difference is only that we don't
control them so as to cancel out "wrong answers".



The reason I think the quantum computer example is important to 
consider is because when we control them to produce a useful result, 
it becomes that much harder to deny the reality and significance of 
the intermediate states.


Which is why I'm pointing that, while important from our view of it as a 
computation, from a physical viewpoint it is nothing unusual. If I poked 
a 100 pinholes in a screen and shone my laser pointer on it there would 
the same number of "intermediate states" between the screen and a photo 
detector.


For instance, we can verify the result of a Shor calculation for the 
factorization of a large prime.  We can't so easily verify the 
statistics of the 1e301 phase relations are what they should be.



This is not only over a googol^2 times the number of silver
halide molecules in your plate, but more than a googol times the
10^80 atoms in the observable universe.

What is it, in your mind, that is able to track and consistently
compute over these 10^301 states, in this system composed of only
1000 atoms?



Are you aware of anything other than many-worlds view that can account 
for this?


I don't see anyway a many-worlds view can account for it.  All those 
qubits have to be entangled and interfere in order to arrive at an 
answer.  So they all have to be in the same world.  Your numerology is 
just counting interference relations in this world, they don't imply 
some events in other worlds.





Also note that you can only read off 200bits of information
(c.f. Holevo's theorem).


True, but that is irrelevant to the number of intermediate states
necessary for the computation that is performed to arrive at the
final and correct answer.


But you have to put in 2^200 complex numbers to initiate your
qubits.  So you're putting in a lot more information than you're
getting out.


You just initialize each of the 200 qubits to be in a superposition.

Those "intermediate states" are just interference patterns in the
computer, not some inter-dimensional information flow.


What is interference, but information flow between different parts of 
the wave function: other "branches" of the superposition making their 
presence known to us by causing different outcomes to manifest in our 
own branch.


Also, many quantum algorithms only give you an answer that is
probably correct.  So you have to run it multiple times to have
confidence in the result.


I would say it depends on the algorithm and the precision of the 
measurement and construction of the computer.  If your algorithm 
computes the square of a randomly initialized set of qubits, then the 
only answer you should get (assuming perfect construction of the 
quantum computer) after measurement will be a perfect square.


Right.  There are some quantum algorithms that give probability 1 answer.



Quantum computers will certainly impact cryptography where there's
heavy reliance on factoring primes and discrete logarithms.  They
should be able to solve protein folding and similar problems that
are out of reach of classical computers.  But they're not a magic
bullet.  Most problems will still be solved faster by

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 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 100 microseconds even if they changed their
state every Plank time (5.39121 x 10^-44 seconds), then
physically speaking it **must** have been simultaneous. 
I don't see any other way to explain this result.  How
can 200 things explore 10^60 states in 10^-4 seconds,
when a Plank time is 5.39 x 10^-44 seconds?



It's no more impressive numerically than an electron wave
function picking out one of 10^30 silver halide molecules on
a photographic plate to interact with (which is also
non-local, aka simultaneous).


Well consider the 1000 qubit quantum computer. This is a 1
followed by 301 zeros.


What is "this".  It's the number possible phase relations between
the 1000 qubits.  If we send a 1000 electrons toward our
photographic plate through a 1000 holes the Schrodinger wave
function approaching the photographic plate then also has 1e301
different phase relations.  The difference is only that we don't
control them so as to cancel out "wrong answers".



The reason I think the quantum computer example is important to 
consider is because when we control them to produce a useful result, 
it becomes that much harder to deny the reality and significance of 
the intermediate states. For instance, we can verify the result of a 
Shor calculation for the factorization of a large prime.


Someone else is interested in factorizing primes?

  We can't so easily verify the statistics of the 1e301 phase 
relations are what they should be.



This is not only over a googol^2 times the number of silver
halide molecules in your plate, but more than a googol times the
10^80 atoms in the observable universe.

What is it, in your mind, that is able to track and consistently
compute over these 10^301 states, in this system composed of only
1000 atoms?



Are you aware of anything other than many-worlds view that can account 
for this?


Yes.


Also note that you can only read off 200bits of information
(c.f. Holevo's theorem).


True, but that is irrelevant to the number of intermediate states
necessary for the computation that is performed to arrive at the
final and correct answer.


But you have to put in 2^200 complex numbers to initiate your
qubits.  So you're putting in a lot more information than you're
getting out.


You just initialize each of the 200 qubits to be in a superposition.

Those "intermediate states" are just interference patterns in the
computer, not some inter-dimensional information flow.


What is interference, but information flow between different parts of 
the wave function: other "branches" of the superposition making their 
presence known to us by causing different outcomes to manifest in our 
own branch.


The superposition exists in our branch.


Also, many quantum algorithms only give you an answer that is
probably correct.  So you have to run it multiple times to have
confidence in the result.


I would say it depends on the algorithm and the precision of the 
measurement and construction of the computer.  If your algorithm 
computes the square of a randomly initialized set of qubits, then the 
only answer you should get (assuming perfect construction of the 
quantum computer) after measurement will be a perfect square.



Quantum computers will certainly impact cryptography where there's
heavy reliance on factoring primes and discrete logarithms.  They
should be able to solve protein folding and similar problems that
are out of reach of classical computers.  But they're not a magic
bullet.  Most problems will still be solved faster by conventional
von Neumann computers or by specialized neural nets.  One reason
is that even though a quantum algorithm is faster in the limit of
large problem size, it may still be slower for the problem size of
interest.  It's the same problem that shows up in classical
algorithms; for example the Coppersmith-Winograd algorithm for
matrix multiplication takes O(n^2.375) compared to the Strassen
O(n^2.807) but it is never used because it is only faster for
matrices too large to be processed in existing computers.


So where do you stand concerning the

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
> computer help?
>

Yes, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm

New cryptographic algorithms are being developed which will presumably be
immune to quantum computers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography

All current asymmetric cryptography in wide use today (for verifying
websites you go to are trusted, that software packages are correct, in
securing confidential information between you and your bank and e-mail
provider, e.g. in digital signature, public key encryption, and key
agreement protocols) are vulnerable. This includes not only RSA
 whose security rests on
factoring primes, but also the discrete logarithm problem which is the
foundation of Diffie-Hellman
 key
exchange and elliptic curve cryptography
.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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
>>> 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 100 microseconds even if they changed their state every
>>> Plank time (5.39121 x 10^-44 seconds), then physically speaking it *
>>> *must** have been simultaneous.  I don't see any other way to explain
>>> this result.  How can 200 things explore 10^60 states in 10^-4 seconds,
>>> when a Plank time is 5.39 x 10^-44 seconds?
>>>
>>
>> It's no more impressive numerically than an electron wave function
>> picking out one of 10^30 silver halide molecules on a photographic plate to
>> interact with (which is also non-local, aka simultaneous).
>>
>>
> Well consider the 1000 qubit quantum computer. This is a 1 followed by 301
> zeros.
>
>
> What is "this".  It's the number possible phase relations between the 1000
> qubits.  If we send a 1000 electrons toward our photographic plate through
> a 1000 holes the Schrodinger wave function approaching the photographic
> plate then also has 1e301 different phase relations.  The difference is
> only that we don't control them so as to cancel out "wrong answers".
>
>

The reason I think the quantum computer example is important to consider is
because when we control them to produce a useful result, it becomes that
much harder to deny the reality and significance of the intermediate
states. For instance, we can verify the result of a Shor calculation for
the factorization of a large prime.  We can't so easily verify the
statistics of the 1e301 phase relations are what they should be.


> This is not only over a googol^2 times the number of silver halide
> molecules in your plate, but more than a googol times the 10^80 atoms in
> the observable universe.
>
> What is it, in your mind, that is able to track and consistently compute
> over these 10^301 states, in this system composed of only 1000 atoms?
>
>
Are you aware of anything other than many-worlds view that can account for
this?



>
>
>> Also note that you can only read off 200bits of information (c.f.
>> Holevo's theorem).
>>
>>
> True, but that is irrelevant to the number of intermediate states
> necessary for the computation that is performed to arrive at the final and
> correct answer.
>
>
> But you have to put in 2^200 complex numbers to initiate your qubits.  So
> you're putting in a lot more information than you're getting out.
>

You just initialize each of the 200 qubits to be in a superposition.


> Those "intermediate states" are just interference patterns in the
> computer, not some inter-dimensional information flow.
>

What is interference, but information flow between different parts of the
wave function: other "branches" of the superposition making their presence
known to us by causing different outcomes to manifest in our own branch.


> Also, many quantum algorithms only give you an answer that is probably
> correct.  So you have to run it multiple times to have confidence in the
> result.
>

I would say it depends on the algorithm and the precision of the
measurement and construction of the computer.  If your algorithm computes
the square of a randomly initialized set of qubits, then the only answer
you should get (assuming perfect construction of the quantum computer)
after measurement will be a perfect square.


>
> Quantum computers will certainly impact cryptography where there's heavy
> reliance on factoring primes and discrete logarithms.  They should be able
> to solve protein folding and similar problems that are out of reach of
> classical computers.  But they're not a magic bullet.  Most problems will
> still be solved faster by conventional von Neumann computers or by
> specialized neural nets.  One reason is that even though a quantum
> algorithm is faster in the limit of large problem size, it may still be
> slower for the problem size of interest.  It's the same problem that shows
> up in classical algorithms; for example the Coppersmith-Winograd algorithm
> for matrix multiplication takes O(n^2.375) compared to the Strassen
> O(n^2.807) but it is never used because it is only faster for matrices too
> large to be processed in existing computers.
>

So where do you stand concerning the reality of the immense number of
intermediate states the qubits are in before measured?

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at

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 this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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
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 100 microseconds
even if they changed their state every Plank time (5.39121 x
10^-44 seconds), then physically speaking it **must** have
been simultaneous.  I don't see any other way to explain this
result.  How can 200 things explore 10^60 states in 10^-4
seconds, when a Plank time is 5.39 x 10^-44 seconds?



It's no more impressive numerically than an electron wave function
picking out one of 10^30 silver halide molecules on a photographic
plate to interact with (which is also non-local, aka simultaneous).


Well consider the 1000 qubit quantum computer. This is a 1 followed by 
301 zeros.


What is "this".  It's the number possible phase relations between the 
1000 qubits.  If we send a 1000 electrons toward our photographic plate 
through a 1000 holes the Schrodinger wave function approaching the 
photographic plate then also has 1e301 different phase relations.  The 
difference is only that we don't control them so as to cancel out "wrong 
answers".


This is not only over a googol^2 times the number of silver halide 
molecules in your plate, but more than a googol times the 10^80 atoms 
in the observable universe.


What is it, in your mind, that is able to track and consistently 
compute over these 10^301 states, in this system composed of only 1000 
atoms?


Also note that you can only read off 200bits of information (c.f.
Holevo's theorem).


True, but that is irrelevant to the number of intermediate states 
necessary for the computation that is performed to arrive at the final 
and correct answer.


But you have to put in 2^200 complex numbers to initiate your qubits.  
So you're putting in a lot more information than you're getting out.  
Those "intermediate states" are just interference patterns in the 
computer, not some inter-dimensional information flow.  Also, many 
quantum algorithms only give you an answer that is probably correct.  So 
you have to run it multiple times to have confidence in the result.


Quantum computers will certainly impact cryptography where there's heavy 
reliance on factoring primes and discrete logarithms.  They should be 
able to solve protein folding and similar problems that are out of reach 
of classical computers.  But they're not a magic bullet.  Most problems 
will still be solved faster by conventional von Neumann computers or by 
specialized neural nets.  One reason is that even though a quantum 
algorithm is faster in the limit of large problem size, it may still be 
slower for the problem size of interest.  It's the same problem that 
shows up in classical algorithms; for example the Coppersmith-Winograd 
algorithm for matrix multiplication takes O(n^2.375) compared to the 
Strassen O(n^2.807) but it is never used because it is only faster for 
matrices too large to be processed in existing computers.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 in 
infinities of observers that are not part of Everett's formulation of QM.



There are two sort of infinity here. One which I hope you agree with, 
like when Alice measure the position of an electron prepared in the 
state of lowest energy level of an electron around a proton. The 
electron state is a superposition of all position possible in the 
corresponding orbital. After measurement she is entangled with that 
electron, and we have an infinity of Alice. OK? (I assume of course 
some classical QM; that might need some correction when GR is used).


I am OK with this, as I have said before. This is just the infinity that 
comes with measuring position or momentum of a particle in a wave packet.


The other sort of infinity, the one which I think you disagree with, 
is typical for the  superposition of tensor products, like the singlet 
state ud - du. Before measurement Alice has the same probability of 
finding u, or d for any measurement she can do in any direction. Both 
Alice and Bob are maximally ignorant of their possible measurement 
results. The MW on this, or a MW way to interpret this, to keep the 
rotational symmetry, is that we have an infinity of couples Alice+Bob, 
with each couple being correlated.  If not, some implicit assumption 
is made on u and d, like it is a preferred base.


But that is not part of quantum mechanics in Everett's or any other 
interpretation. It is an infinite superposition that you have added on 
for your own reasons. I have previously offered some suggestions as to 
how you could create such a superposition in a conventional way. One 
obvious possibility is to have Alice choose her measurement angle 
according to some random quantum process, such as radioactive decay.


But the problems with any such suggestion are obvious. Firstly, Alice 
does not choose her measurement angle in that way, so there is no 
super-superposition created. Secondly, this construction does not 
restore the rotational symmetry in any case. You might have an infinite 
number of Alices, measuring the singlet at all possible angles, but that 
multi-multiverse is not rotationally symmetric either! All it needs is 
for Alice number 7,234,826 to poke her tongue out and the rotational 
symmetry is lost! Of course, you could add yet more multiverses to cover 
every possible deviation of Alice from the stationary state. But the 
process rapidly becomes ridiculous.


So this Rube Goldberg construction of additional multiverses of 
superpositions does not actually restore stable rotational symmetry. So 
why propose such a construction? William of Ockham will rise out of his 
grave to haunt you for such pointless extravagance of entities!


And yes, I do assume locality, if only to illustrate that the MW does 
not force the presence of FTL influence (without transfert of 
information, which actually would require a third person indeterminacy 
in Nature, which I doubt).


It is just a consequence of ud-du = u’d’-d’u’, and the fact that this 
implies maximal ignorance of Alice (and Bob) whatever spin-direction 
is chosen. After the choice of Alice, and her measurement, neither 
Alice and Bob will be able to access a different world. All Alice and 
Bob will have to interpret the state like if it was s simple (two 
terms) superposition. It is like suppressing the global phase of the 
state.


And what is the problem with regarding it like this? Even if you add in 
these arbitrary multi-superpositions, you end up with an Alice making a 
single measurement in some particular direction and communicating with 
her partner Bob, who was always in the same world. All your additional 
worlds add only smoke and confusion -- they do not actually change 
anything of substance. Alice's measurement on the non-separable state 
destroys the original rotational symmetry of that state -- and nothing 
that you can do will ever restore that symmetry.




The measurement that Alice makes destroys the symmetry. That is all 
there is to it. There is not some wider symmetry that is preserved.


That is Bohr theory. Not Everett. A measurement does not change 
anything in the big picture. It collapses wave and destroys 
symmetries only in the relative first person mind associated to 
bodies doing the experience.


It is not Bohr's theory, it is quantum mechanics. You appear to 
believe that symmetry cannot be destroyed,


The symmetry is destroyed from the perspective of the one doing the 
experiment. But it is extended to the couple Alice + the singlet 
state, although “rational symmetry” might be have its usual definition 
slightly enlarged.


I don't think there is any way in which you can "enlarge" the definition 
of rotational

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-21 Thread agrayson2000

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 (more states than is possible for 200 things to go through 
>> in 100 microseconds even if they changed their state every Plank time 
>> (5.39121 x 10^-44 seconds), then physically speaking it **must** have 
>> been simultaneous.  I don't see any other way to explain this result.  How 
>> can 200 things explore 10^60 states in 10^-4 seconds, when a Plank time is 
>> 5.39 x 10^-44 seconds?
>>
>
> It's no more impressive numerically than an electron wave function picking 
> out one of 10^30 silver halide molecules on a photographic plate to 
> interact with (which is also non-local, aka simultaneous).
>

*It's hard to keep up with you. When I claimed the wf sort-of propagates 
instantaneously at its creation since, say, the probability density for 
double slit extends from minus to plus infinity, you claimed I was making 
unrealistic assumptions about initial conditions, such as assuming the 
screen extends to infinity. Would appreciate clarification on this issue. 
Does the wf in complex plane extend to infinity in real and imaginary axis? 
In general, does the positively valued probability density extend to minus 
and plus infinity? TIA, AG*

Brent

*Impressive calculation to be sure, but is this a theoretical value based 
on the assumption I deny; or is it achieved by a working quantum computer? 
AG *

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 states than is possible for 200 things to go through
>> in 100 microseconds even if they changed their state every Plank time
>> (5.39121 x 10^-44 seconds), then physically speaking it **must** have
>> been simultaneous.  I don't see any other way to explain this result.  How
>> can 200 things explore 10^60 states in 10^-4 seconds, when a Plank time is
>> 5.39 x 10^-44 seconds?
>>
>
> It's no more impressive numerically than an electron wave function picking
> out one of 10^30 silver halide molecules on a photographic plate to
> interact with (which is also non-local, aka simultaneous).
>
>
Well consider the 1000 qubit quantum computer. This is a 1 followed by 301
zeros.  This is not only over a googol^2 times the number of silver halide
molecules in your plate, but more than a googol times the 10^80 atoms in
the observable universe.

What is it, in your mind, that is able to track and consistently compute
over these 10^301 states, in this system composed of only 1000 atoms?



> Also note that you can only read off 200bits of information (c.f. Holevo's
> theorem).
>
>
True, but that is irrelevant to the number of intermediate states necessary
for the computation that is performed to arrive at the final and correct
answer.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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:

>
>
> 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 11:49:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal
>>> wrote:


 On 15 Aug 2018, at 12:36, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 10:22:40 AM UTC, agrays...@
 gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 9:58:57 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:12, Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 8/14/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> >> How do you explain interference fringes in the two slits? How
>> do you explain the different behaviour of u+d and a mixture of u and 
>> d.
>> >>
>> >> If the wave is not real, how doe it interfere even when we are
>> not there?
>> >
>> > How does it interfere with itself unless it goes through both
>> slits in the same world...thus being non-local.
>>
>> The wave is a trans-world notion. You should better see it as a
>> wave of histories/worlds, than a wave in one world. I don’t think 
>> “one
>> world” is well defined enough to make sense in both Everett and 
>> Mechanism.
>>
>
> *If you start with the error tGhat all possible results of a
> measurement must be realized, you can't avoid many worlds. Then, if 
> you
> fall in love with the implications of this error, you are firmly in 
> woo-woo
> land with the prime directive of bringing as many as possible into 
> this
> illusion / delusion. This is where we're at IMO. AG *
>

 *Truthfully, I don't know why, when you do a slit experiment one
 particle at a time, the result is quantum interference. It might be 
 because
 particles move as waves and each particle goes through both slits. In 
 any
 event, I don't see the MWI is a solution to this problem. It just 
 takes us
 down a deeper rabbit hole. AG*


 Everything is in the formalism, as well exemplified by the two
 slits. If you miss this, then consider the quantum algorithm by Shor.
 There, a “particle” is not just going through two slits, but 
 participate in
 parallel, yet different computations, and we get an indirect evidence 
 by
 the information we can extract from a quantum Fourier transform on all
 results obtained in the parallel branches.

>>>
>>> *No. It's all nonsense. AG *
>>>


>> No it's something you can already buy and use today:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/10/ibm-passes-major-milestone-with-20-and-50-qubit-quantum-computers-as-a-service/
>>
>> Jason
>>
>
> *If you're referring to my critique of the standard quantum
> interpretation of the superposition of states -- that a system in a
> superposition is in ALL component states SIMULTANEOUSLY -- show me where
> that INTERPRETATION is used in quantum computers.*
>

 It's in the definition of a qubit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit

>>>
>>> *But that's not nearly enough. You have to show where the assumption is
>>> applied. In the case of standard QM, the superposition is written as a sum
>>> of eigenstates, which are mutually orthogonal. So, as I pointed out
>>> exhaustively with no takers, the assumption isn't used in calculating
>>> probabilities. When you take the inner product of an eigenstate with the
>>> wf, all terms drop out except the eigenvalue whose probability you are
>>> calculating. Is the situation different with qubits*? AG
>>>
>>
>>
>> These superposed states either exist or they don't.  Which is it in your
>> view?  In my view they exist, because that is the only way to explain the
>> computational power of a quantum computer.
>>
>
> *I am not doubting the existence of the superposed states; just their
> *interpretation* which is key to achieving the postulated speeds of quantum
> computers. See comment below. AG *
>
>>
>>
>>>


>
> * I know it isn't used to calculate probabilities in quantum theory.
> It's a postulate which is NOT used, so by Occam Razor it should be
> eliminated. AG*
>


 You can't calculate the final probabilities without

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 100 microseconds even if they
changed their state every Plank time (5.39121 x 10^-44 seconds),
then physically speaking it **must** have been simultaneous.  I
don't see any other way to explain this result.  How can 200
things explore 10^60 states in 10^-4 seconds, when a Plank time is
5.39 x 10^-44 seconds?



It's no more impressive numerically than an electron wave function 
picking out one of 10^30 silver halide molecules on a photographic plate 
to interact with (which is also non-local, aka simultaneous).


Also note that you can only read off 200bits of information (c.f. 
Holevo's theorem).


Brent



*Impressive calculation to be sure, but is this a theoretical value 
based on the assumption I deny; or is it achieved by a working quantum 
computer? AG *


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-21 Thread agrayson2000



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 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018,  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:49:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 15 Aug 2018, at 12:36, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 10:22:40 AM UTC, agrays...@
>>> gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 9:58:57 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal 
 wrote:
>
>
> > On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:12, Brent Meeker  
> wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 8/14/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> >> How do you explain interference fringes in the two slits? How 
> do you explain the different behaviour of u+d and a mixture of u and 
> d. 
> >> 
> >> If the wave is not real, how doe it interfere even when we are 
> not there? 
> > 
> > How does it interfere with itself unless it goes through both 
> slits in the same world...thus being non-local. 
>
> The wave is a trans-world notion. You should better see it as a 
> wave of histories/worlds, than a wave in one world. I don’t think 
> “one 
> world” is well defined enough to make sense in both Everett and 
> Mechanism. 
>

 *If you start with the error tGhat all possible results of a 
 measurement must be realized, you can't avoid many worlds. Then, if 
 you 
 fall in love with the implications of this error, you are firmly in 
 woo-woo 
 land with the prime directive of bringing as many as possible into 
 this 
 illusion / delusion. This is where we're at IMO. AG *

>>>
>>> *Truthfully, I don't know why, when you do a slit experiment one 
>>> particle at a time, the result is quantum interference. It might be 
>>> because 
>>> particles move as waves and each particle goes through both slits. In 
>>> any 
>>> event, I don't see the MWI is a solution to this problem. It just takes 
>>> us 
>>> down a deeper rabbit hole. AG*
>>>
>>>
>>> Everything is in the formalism, as well exemplified by the two 
>>> slits. If you miss this, then consider the quantum algorithm by Shor. 
>>> There, a “particle” is not just going through two slits, but 
>>> participate in 
>>> parallel, yet different computations, and we get an indirect evidence 
>>> by 
>>> the information we can extract from a quantum Fourier transform on all 
>>> results obtained in the parallel branches. 
>>>
>>
>> *No. It's all nonsense. AG *
>>
>>>
>>>
> No it's something you can already buy and use today:
>
>
>
> https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/10/ibm-passes-major-milestone-with-20-and-50-qubit-quantum-computers-as-a-service/
>
> Jason
>

 *If you're referring to my critique of the standard quantum 
 interpretation of the superposition of states -- that a system in a 
 superposition is in ALL component states SIMULTANEOUSLY -- show me where 
 that INTERPRETATION is used in quantum computers.*

>>>
>>> It's in the definition of a qubit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit
>>>
>>
>> *But that's not nearly enough. You have to show where the assumption is 
>> applied. In the case of standard QM, the superposition is written as a sum 
>> of eigenstates, which are mutually orthogonal. So, as I pointed out 
>> exhaustively with no takers, the assumption isn't used in calculating 
>> probabilities. When you take the inner product of an eigenstate with the 
>> wf, all terms drop out except the eigenvalue whose probability you are 
>> calculating. Is the situation different with qubits*? AG 
>>
>
>
> These superposed states either exist or they don't.  Which is it in your 
> view?  In my view they exist, because that is the only way to explain the 
> computational power of a quantum computer.
>

*I am not doubting the existence of the superposed states; just their 
*interpretation* which is key to achieving the postulated speeds of quantum 
computers. See comment below. AG *

>  
>
>>
>>>  
>>>

 * I know it isn't used to calculate probabilities in quantum theory. 
 It's a postulate which is NOT used, so by Occam Razor it should be 
 eliminated. AG*

>>>
>>>
>>> You can't calculate the final probabilities without assuming the qubits 
>>> enter the superposition of all possible states, 
>>>
>>
>> *See above. I am not questioning the existence and utility of the 
>>

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* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 20 Aug 2018, at 13:18, Bruce Kellett 
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> 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 the relevant parts of my earlier 
post here:


"The fact that Alice's interaction with the state is unitary and 
can be reversed does not mean that the original symmetry still 
exists in some sense. If I place a large weight at some point on 
the circumference of a bicycle wheel, the rotational symmetry of 
that wheel is lost. The fact that I can reverse the process by 
removing the imposed weight does not mean that the altered wheel 
is still rotationally symmetric in some wider view.”


OK, but when the heavy object is removed, at that moment, the 
symmetry is back. Then, when Alice makes the measurement, the 
symmetry is lost from her point of view, but the general symmetry 
of the state has not changed. It is only not retrievable by Alice 
(unless quantum erasure, amnesia, etc.).


Bruno, you have not made the least effort to understand the point I 
made above,


Stop speculating on people.


I am merely responding to what you wrote. No speculation involved.



How do you know I did not make some effort. Maybe you imagine that I 
am clever or something. You might need to develop some sense of pedagogy.








or to respond to it intelligently.


Sop making judgement.


There has been no intelligent response. No judgement involved.


That is a contradiction.






It is difficult to believe that you are actually discussing this in 
good faith. You just keep repeating your own misunderstandings of 
the situation.


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 in 
infinities of observers that are not part of Everett's formulation of QM.



There are two sort of infinity here. One which I hope you agree with, 
like when Alice measure the position of an electron prepared in the 
state of lowest energy level of an electron around a proton. The 
electron state is a superposition of all position possible in the 
corresponding orbital. After measurement she is entangled with that 
electron, and we have an infinity of Alice. OK? (I assume of course 
some classical QM; that might need some correction when GR is used).


This assumes that Alice has used a measuring instrument whose 
interaction is spherically symmetric.  It is because her instrument has 
an infinite (or at least very big) number of possible results that there 
are an infinity (or many) Alice's.


The other sort of infinity, the one which I think you disagree with, 
is typical for the  superposition of tensor products, like the singlet 
state ud - du. Before measurement Alice has the same probability of 
finding u, or d for any measurement she can do in any direction.


But direction is chosen via her thought processes which are effectively 
classical.  Her wf is not rotationaly symmetric. It could be arranged 
that some quantum random number generator is used to set the detector 
angle to X.  In that case the multiverse would split into many different 
branches when the qrng result decohered and output X.  But this event 
would still leave Alice and Bob spacelike separate in the world where 
the qrng output X.  There will be many branches corresponding to the 
many possible values of X. But in each branch the change of the wf when 
Alice measures the spin along X will be a non-local splitting into 
"up-X" or "down-X".   At least that's conventional QM.


Brent

Both Alice and Bob are maximally ignorant of their possible 
measurement results. The MW on this, or a MW way to interpret this, to 
keep the rotational symmetry, is that we have an infinity of couples 
Alice+Bob, with each couple being correlated.  If not, some implicit 
assumption is made on u and d, like it is a preferred base.
And yes, I do assume locality, if only to illustrate that the MW does 
not force the presence of FTL influence (without transfert of 
information, which actually would require a third person indeterminacy 
in Nature, which I doubt).


It is just a consequence of ud-du = u’d’-d’u’, and the fact that this 
implies maximal ignorance of Alice (and Bob) whatever spin-direction 
is chosen. After the choice of Alice, and her measurement, neither 
Alice and Bob will be able to access a different world. All Alice and 
Bob will have to interpret the state like if it was s simple (two 
terms) superposition. It is like suppressing the global phase of the 
state.








The measurement that Alice makes

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:

>
>
> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:49:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 15 Aug 2018, at 12:36, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 10:22:40 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 9:58:57 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 > On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:12, Brent Meeker 
 wrote:
 >
 >
 >
 > On 8/14/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 >> How do you explain interference fringes in the two slits? How do
 you explain the different behaviour of u+d and a mixture of u and d.
 >>
 >> If the wave is not real, how doe it interfere even when we are
 not there?
 >
 > How does it interfere with itself unless it goes through both
 slits in the same world...thus being non-local.

 The wave is a trans-world notion. You should better see it as a
 wave of histories/worlds, than a wave in one world. I don’t think “one
 world” is well defined enough to make sense in both Everett and 
 Mechanism.

>>>
>>> *If you start with the error tGhat all possible results of a
>>> measurement must be realized, you can't avoid many worlds. Then, if you
>>> fall in love with the implications of this error, you are firmly in 
>>> woo-woo
>>> land with the prime directive of bringing as many as possible into this
>>> illusion / delusion. This is where we're at IMO. AG *
>>>
>>
>> *Truthfully, I don't know why, when you do a slit experiment one
>> particle at a time, the result is quantum interference. It might be 
>> because
>> particles move as waves and each particle goes through both slits. In any
>> event, I don't see the MWI is a solution to this problem. It just takes 
>> us
>> down a deeper rabbit hole. AG*
>>
>>
>> Everything is in the formalism, as well exemplified by the two slits.
>> If you miss this, then consider the quantum algorithm by Shor. There, a
>> “particle” is not just going through two slits, but participate in
>> parallel, yet different computations, and we get an indirect evidence by
>> the information we can extract from a quantum Fourier transform on all
>> results obtained in the parallel branches.
>>
>
> *No. It's all nonsense. AG *
>
>>
>>
 No it's something you can already buy and use today:



 https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/10/ibm-passes-major-milestone-with-20-and-50-qubit-quantum-computers-as-a-service/

 Jason

>>>
>>> *If you're referring to my critique of the standard quantum
>>> interpretation of the superposition of states -- that a system in a
>>> superposition is in ALL component states SIMULTANEOUSLY -- show me where
>>> that INTERPRETATION is used in quantum computers.*
>>>
>>
>> It's in the definition of a qubit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit
>>
>
> *But that's not nearly enough. You have to show where the assumption is
> applied. In the case of standard QM, the superposition is written as a sum
> of eigenstates, which are mutually orthogonal. So, as I pointed out
> exhaustively with no takers, the assumption isn't used in calculating
> probabilities. When you take the inner product of an eigenstate with the
> wf, all terms drop out except the eigenvalue whose probability you are
> calculating. Is the situation different with qubits*? AG
>


These superposed states either exist or they don't.  Which is it in your
view?  In my view they exist, because that is the only way to explain the
computational power of a quantum computer.


>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> * I know it isn't used to calculate probabilities in quantum theory.
>>> It's a postulate which is NOT used, so by Occam Razor it should be
>>> eliminated. AG*
>>>
>>
>>
>> You can't calculate the final probabilities without assuming the qubits
>> enter the superposition of all possible states,
>>
>
> *See above. I am not questioning the existence and utility of the
> superposition itself, but the assumption that a system in a superposition
> is simultaneously in all component states of the superposition. AG*
>
>

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 100 microseconds even if they changed their state every Plank time
(5.39121 x 10^-44 seconds), then physically speaking it **must** have been
simultaneous.

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 was referring to the enumeration in the SANE2004 paper, which is
kind of canonical:

OK. I also have the SANE paper.

7) The seventh step introduces the Universal Dovetailer (UD). Let N denotes the
set of
natural numbers. A function from N to N is said to be total if it is defined on
all natural
numbers. A function is said to be computable iff there is a programme FORTRAN
which
computes it12. Church thesis (CT) makes the particular choice of FORTRAN
irrelevant. CT
claims that all computable functions, total or not, are computed by algorithm
expressible in
FORTRAN. In particular all total computable functions are computed by such
FORTRAN
program...

Yes I understood it introduced the UD and per the C-T inferred that all
possible computations are performed by it.

Bruno wrote,"In that case consciousness is associated with a digital
self-referential entity which cannot distinguish
a “bottom” (primary) physical reality from an arithmetical reality"

I objected, "But you didn't show that."

You responded, "This is directly the result at step 7 of the UDA. And it is pretty
much required for the Church Turing thesis to hold."

It is not the UD which implies this, but just the digital mechanist hypothesis.
A person whose brain is in a vat, with the right configuration, cannot know
that she is in a brain in a vat. Similarly, we cannot know if we are processed
by something primarily physical or not. If I implement the combinators in
FORTRAN or in LISP, no combinators can distinguish the two from their personal
experience (that without observation). Same for the arithmetical/physical.

The UD is used to formulate the measure problem, not to argue that a digital
machine cannot distinguish an arithmetical from a physical “master machine”,
which is a direct consequence of digital mechanism.

It seems to me like the rock that computes everything. The UD is effectively
running every possible simulation at once

So to speak. The universal dovetailer has to dovetail, of course.

and so is simulating everything at once. Whether some thread within it
simulates you or simulates a rock on alpha centauri becomes a matter of
interpretation.

? If it simulates you, you will feel to be conscious. The point will be that
there is no rock which could ever be simulable by any computer, except those
exloiting directly the infinities of computations below our level of
substitution, like plausibly, a quantum computer.

The computations of the UD can have no unique interpretation.

A computation *is* an interpretation, made by a universal machine. That is what
the universal do: computation.

But that doesn't make it an interpretation. My wristwatch does
universal computation.

Then with mechanism, some can be associated to consciousness, when they emulate
self-referential entity.

Can you watch a running program and tell that it is emulating a
self-referential entity or not?

If curiosity is conscious on Mars, it has to be conscious in the virtual mars
during its training on Earth, and it has to be conscious in arithmetic, in
virtue of the same number relations.

Exactly my point. The Mars Rover is not conscious simpliciter, it is
conscious of its body and its environment. The program running on it's
cpu could have any interpretation; it is only its connections to the
environment that provide a definite interpretation. The enivronment can
be simulated too, but then the closed system cannot provide its own
interpretation. Number relations do not of themselves provide an
interpretation.

The entire UD is infinite. So it cannot exist in the physical universe.

Better to not assume a “god" when doing metaphysics; It biases the whole
reasoning.The idea that seeing is the criterion of reality is the Aristotelian
speculation that Plato warned us to not fall in.

Exactly. You are assuming a UD god that is infinite.

Brent

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-21 Thread agrayson2000



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 11:49:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 15 Aug 2018, at 12:36, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 10:22:40 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 9:58:57 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:12, Brent Meeker  
>>> wrote: 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > On 8/14/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>>> >> How do you explain interference fringes in the two slits? How do 
>>> you explain the different behaviour of u+d and a mixture of u and d. 
>>> >> 
>>> >> If the wave is not real, how doe it interfere even when we are 
>>> not there? 
>>> > 
>>> > How does it interfere with itself unless it goes through both 
>>> slits in the same world...thus being non-local. 
>>>
>>> The wave is a trans-world notion. You should better see it as a wave 
>>> of histories/worlds, than a wave in one world. I don’t think “one 
>>> world” is 
>>> well defined enough to make sense in both Everett and Mechanism. 
>>>
>>
>> *If you start with the error tGhat all possible results of a 
>> measurement must be realized, you can't avoid many worlds. Then, if you 
>> fall in love with the implications of this error, you are firmly in 
>> woo-woo 
>> land with the prime directive of bringing as many as possible into this 
>> illusion / delusion. This is where we're at IMO. AG *
>>
>
> *Truthfully, I don't know why, when you do a slit experiment one 
> particle at a time, the result is quantum interference. It might be 
> because 
> particles move as waves and each particle goes through both slits. In any 
> event, I don't see the MWI is a solution to this problem. It just takes 
> us 
> down a deeper rabbit hole. AG*
>
>
> Everything is in the formalism, as well exemplified by the two slits. 
> If you miss this, then consider the quantum algorithm by Shor. There, a 
> “particle” is not just going through two slits, but participate in 
> parallel, yet different computations, and we get an indirect evidence by 
> the information we can extract from a quantum Fourier transform on all 
> results obtained in the parallel branches. 
>

 *No. It's all nonsense. AG *

>
>
>>> No it's something you can already buy and use today:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/10/ibm-passes-major-milestone-with-20-and-50-qubit-quantum-computers-as-a-service/
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>
>> *If you're referring to my critique of the standard quantum 
>> interpretation of the superposition of states -- that a system in a 
>> superposition is in ALL component states SIMULTANEOUSLY -- show me where 
>> that INTERPRETATION is used in quantum computers.*
>>
>
> It's in the definition of a qubit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit
>

*But that's not nearly enough. You have to show where the assumption is 
applied. In the case of standard QM, the superposition is written as a sum 
of eigenstates, which are mutually orthogonal. So, as I pointed out 
exhaustively with no takers, the assumption isn't used in calculating 
probabilities. When you take the inner product of an eigenstate with the 
wf, all terms drop out except the eigenvalue whose probability you are 
calculating. Is the situation different with qubits*? AG 

>
>  
>
>>
>> * I know it isn't used to calculate probabilities in quantum theory. It's 
>> a postulate which is NOT used, so by Occam Razor it should be eliminated. 
>> AG*
>>
>
>
> You can't calculate the final probabilities without assuming the qubits 
> enter the superposition of all possible states, 
>

*See above. I am not questioning the existence and utility of the 
superposition itself, but the assumption that a system in a superposition 
is simultaneously in all component states of the superposition. AG*
 

> which is why it becomes exponentially hard to predict what happens with a 
> larger number of qubits in a quantum computer.  This is why large scale 
> quantum computers must be built, we can't just simulate them with regular 
> computers because the number of states it is simultaneously in quickly 
> becomes enourmous:
>
> 1 qubit: 2 states
> 5 qubits: 32 states (you can use this quantum computer for free on the 
> link I provided)
> 10 qubits: 1024 states
> 20 qubits: 1,048,576 states (you can pay to use this quantum computer today
>
 

> )
> 30 qubits: 1,073,741,824 states
> 50 qubits: 1,125,899,906,842,624 states (IBM recently built a quantum 
> computer with 50 qubits 
>

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 threads of computation by the UD.  These threads are picked 
out by some as yet unknown statistic that makes them constitute a 
sequence of thoughts, aka "observer moments".  Matter and the physical 
world exists only as an implication or inference of these thoughts.  
Thats your reversal of psychology and physics. Right?


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 
matter at all could ever be simulated by a computer.


You contradict yourself within one sentence.  "A brain is digital and 
our body is not"??


"No piece of matter at all could ever be simulated by a computer." but 
it is simulated or created by the UD.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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  > 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 the relevant parts of my earlier post here:
> 
> "The fact that Alice's interaction with the state is unitary and can be 
> reversed does not mean that the original symmetry still exists in some 
> sense. If I place a large weight at some point on the circumference of a 
> bicycle wheel, the rotational symmetry of that wheel is lost. The fact 
> that I can reverse the process by removing the imposed weight does not 
> mean that the altered wheel is still rotationally symmetric in some wider 
> view.”

 OK, but when the heavy object is removed, at that moment, the symmetry is 
 back. Then, when Alice makes the measurement, the symmetry is lost from 
 her point of view, but the general symmetry of the state has not changed. 
 It is only not retrievable by Alice (unless quantum erasure, amnesia, 
 etc.).
>>> 
>>> Bruno, you have not made the least effort to understand the point I made 
>>> above,
>> 
>> Stop speculating on people.
> 
> I am merely responding to what you wrote. No speculation involved.

How do you know I did not make some effort. Maybe you imagine that I am clever 
or something. You might need to develop some sense of pedagogy.

> 
>>> or to respond to it intelligently.
>> 
>> Sop making judgement.
> 
> There has been no intelligent response. No judgement involved.

That is a contradiction.

> 
>>> It is difficult to believe that you are actually discussing this in good 
>>> faith. You just keep repeating your own misunderstandings of the situation.
>> 
>> 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 in 
> infinities of observers that are not part of Everett's formulation of QM.

There are two sort of infinity here. One which I hope you agree with, like when 
Alice measure the position of an electron prepared in the state of lowest 
energy level of an electron around a proton. The electron state is a 
superposition of all position possible in the corresponding orbital. After 
measurement she is entangled with that electron, and we have an infinity of 
Alice. OK? (I assume of course some classical QM; that might need some 
correction when GR is used).
The other sort of infinity, the one which I think you disagree with, is typical 
for the  superposition of tensor products, like the singlet state ud - du. 
Before measurement Alice has the same probability of finding u, or d for any 
measurement she can do in any direction. Both Alice and Bob are maximally 
ignorant of their possible measurement results. The MW on this, or a MW way to 
interpret this, to keep the rotational symmetry, is that we have an infinity of 
couples Alice+Bob, with each couple being correlated.  If not, some implicit 
assumption is made on u and d, like it is a preferred base.
And yes, I do assume locality, if only to illustrate that the MW does not force 
the presence of FTL influence (without transfert of information, which actually 
would require a third person indeterminacy in Nature, which I doubt).

It is just a consequence of ud-du = u’d’-d’u’, and the fact that this implies 
maximal ignorance of Alice (and Bob) whatever spin-direction is chosen. After 
the choice of Alice, and her measurement, neither Alice and Bob will be able to 
access a different world. All Alice and Bob will have to interpret the state 
like if it was s simple (two terms) superposition. It is like suppressing the 
global phase of the state.

> 
>>> The measurement that Alice makes destroys the symmetry. That is all there 
>>> is to it. There is not some wider symmetry that is preserved.
>> 
>> That is Bohr theory. Not Everett. A measurement does not change anything in 
>> the big picture. It collapses wave and destroys symmetries only in the 
>> relative first person mind associated to bodies doing the experience. 
> 
> It is not Bohr's theory, it is quantum mechanics. You appear to believe that 
> symmetry cannot be destroyed,

The symmetry is destroyed from the perspective of the one doing the experiment. 
But it is extended to the couple Alice + the singlet state, although “rational 
symmetry” might be have its usual definition slightly enlarged. 

> even though I have given clear examples where this happens.

It was using some collapse. It seems to me. 

> The symmetry is destroyed totally, not just in the mind of the

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 earlier post in which I discussed the 
symmetry breaking occasioned by Alice's measurement interaction 
with the singlet state. I copy the relevant parts of my earlier 
post here:

"The fact that Alice's interaction with the state is unitary and 
can be reversed does not mean that the original symmetry still 
exists in some sense. If I place a large weight at some point on 
the circumference of a bicycle wheel, the rotational symmetry of 
that wheel is lost. The fact that I can reverse the process by 
removing the imposed weight does not mean that the altered wheel is 
still rotationally symmetric in some wider view.”

OK, but when the heavy object is removed, at that moment, the 
symmetry is back. Then, when Alice makes the measurement, the 
symmetry is lost from her point of view, but the general symmetry of 
the state has not changed. It is only not retrievable by Alice 
(unless quantum erasure, amnesia, etc.).

Bruno, you have not made the least effort to understand the point I 
made above,

Stop speculating on people.

I am merely responding to what you wrote. No speculation involved.

or to respond to it intelligently.

Sop making judgement.

There has been no intelligent response. No judgement involved.

It is difficult to believe that you are actually discussing this in 
good faith. You just keep repeating your own misunderstandings of the 
situation.

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 in 
infinities of observers that are not part of Everett's formulation of QM.

The measurement that Alice makes destroys the symmetry. That is all 
there is to it. There is not some wider symmetry that is preserved.

That is Bohr theory. Not Everett. A measurement does not change 
anything in the big picture. It collapses wave and destroys symmetries 
only in the relative first person mind associated to bodies doing the 
experience.

It is not Bohr's theory, it is quantum mechanics. You appear to believe 
that symmetry cannot be destroyed, even though I have given clear 
examples where this happens. The symmetry is destroyed totally, not just 
in the mind of the experimenter. If the symmetry is still preserved in 
some bigger picture, it is up to you to prove this. But you have not 
been able to do so. It is just an assertion on your part. And that 
assertion happens to be false.

What you have to do is to work through the application of the 
Schrödinger equation for this situation, without invoking any collapse, 
and demonstrate that the symmetry is still present in the total wave 
function. I contend that you will not be able to do this, because the 
interaction with the singlet state destroys the rotational symmetry. 
This is really a trivial observation since the Stern-Gerlach magnet 
itself is not rotationally symmetric.

Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 self-referential entity which cannot distinguish
>>a “bottom” (primary) physical reality from an arithmetical reality
>> 
>> 
>> But you didn't show that. 
> 
> This is directly the result at step 7 of the UDA. And it is pretty much 
> required for the Church Turing thesis to hold. Of course, step 7 relies on 
> robustness of the *-verse, for which step 8 is the remedy.
> 
> But already, I believe the *-verse must be robust, as otherwise quantum 
> computing supremacy will never work. Empirical support of this contention is 
> due real soon now™. So I suspect step 8 could well be consigned to the 
> dustbin of history...
> 
>> You only showed that it would be true if the digital
>> entity were immersed in an environment.  You argued that the environment 
>> could
>> also be digital...but the doctor couldn't provide that.  But then your 
>> argument
>> fails.  You've only shown that the digital entity can exist in a digital
>> environment consisting of digital matter (including the entities digital
>> brain).  So you've just replicated the world except you've appended "digital"
>> in front of every noun and relation.  If everything is digital, then digital
>> matter may be primary in this digital world.  The adjective "digital" has 
>> lost
>> it's metaphysical significance...unless you can derive some observable
>> consequence of "digital".
>> 
> 
> This is a critique of step 8 (the MGA), which curryfies the environment into 
> the computation. My money's on robustness being empirically confirmed in the 
> next few decades…

I would say that the robustness has never cease to be confirmed. It is what we 
live everyday. But to solve the mind-body problem, we have to explain that 
robustness by the “many-dreams internal interpretation of 
arithmetic/combinator/…”.

Bruno



> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 occasioned by Alice's measurement interaction with the singlet 
>>> state. I copy the relevant parts of my earlier post here:
>>> 
>>> "The fact that Alice's interaction with the state is unitary and can be 
>>> reversed does not mean that the original symmetry still exists in some 
>>> sense. If I place a large weight at some point on the circumference of a 
>>> bicycle wheel, the rotational symmetry of that wheel is lost. The fact that 
>>> I can reverse the process by removing the imposed weight does not mean that 
>>> the altered wheel is still rotationally symmetric in some wider view.”
>> 
>> OK, but when the heavy object is removed, at that moment, the symmetry is 
>> back. Then, when Alice makes the measurement, the symmetry is lost from her 
>> point of view, but the general symmetry of the state has not changed. It is 
>> only not retrievable by Alice (unless quantum erasure, amnesia, etc.).
> 
> Bruno, you have not made the least effort to understand the point I made 
> above,


Stop speculating on people.



> or to respond to it intelligently.


Sop making judgement.




> It is difficult to believe that you are actually discussing this in good 
> faith. You just keep repeating your own misunderstandings of the situation.


This is discussed since the beginning of QM. Stop talking like if only you 
understand Everett. 




> The measurement that Alice makes destroys the symmetry. That is all there is 
> to it. There is not some wider symmetry that is preserved.

That is Bohr theory. Not Everett. A measurement does not change anything in the 
big picture. It collapses wave and destroys symmetries only in the relative 
first person mind associated to bodies doing the experience. 

Bruno





> 
> Bruce
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 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 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 collapse in the picture. That’s 
>> my feeling, as this is not clear. When measuring a spin: there are two 
>> possible values *for all possible direction of the spin*.
> 
> For all possible directions of the spin measurement.  There is nothing 
> about Alice or Bob that makes all directions possible except in the 
> classical sense of "possible".
> 
>> That makes infinitely many worlds.
> 
> But you have elsewhere renounced the view that everything possible 
> happens.
> 
> He's affirming the error that's at the root of the MW nonsense; namely, 
> everything that's possible to happen, must happen. AG 
 
 With *different* relative probabilities, given by the square of the 
 amplitude, (in QM) and by the material mode in the theology of the 
 machine. Yes, the physical “knowledge” is always purely statistical, in 
 both QM and Mechanism.
 
 Do you understand English? Your reply is inapposite to my comment. AG 
>>> 
>>> “Affirming the error” is ambiguous. 
>>> 
>>> I just meant that your application or interpretation of QM assumes that 
>>> every outcome that is possible, must be realized, or measured, or observed. 
>>> I don't see any basis (reason) for making this assumption. If you have one, 
>>> which can be stated without appeal to arithmetic, I'd like to see it 
>>> argued. AG 
>> 
>> It is dictated by the wave equation (or Heisenberg Matrix). The worlds are 
>> (notably) the relative state defined by the branch of the superposition, and 
>> we cannot throw them away. That is so true that the founders of QM invented 
>> the notion of an observer collapsing the wave to select the outcome they 
>> saw, but that addition violates the SWE. That is reasonable FAPP, but it 
>> presupposes that the observer does NOT obey the SWE, and this introduce a 
>> dubious dualism (incompatible with Mechanism, among other absurdities, like 
>> FTL, etc.).
>> 
>> IMO, this is an inadequate justification for assuming that every eigenvalue 
>> that can be measured, that is possible to be measured, must be measured.
> 
> The whole point of the MW is that a measurement is explained as a classical 
> mechanical events, or a thermodynamical event which has to be locally 
> irreversible so as to memorisable. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> There is nothing in the SWE that requires this. Further, as you have be 
>> informed many times here, there is no requirement that collapse must be 
>> caused by a human observer.
> 
> No collapse = MW (except for the guiding wave theory which is as much MW than 
> Everett, as Bell argued once, but  with added particles so as to select one 
> history among many).
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Feynman showed by a simple argument that this is unnecessary. Just let an 
>> instrument record the outcomes. AG
> 
> 
> That is exactly my point. Measurement (in the mechanical sense of Feynman and 
> Everett) are usually done by the environment itself, which is not recordable, 
> and so we lost the ability to get back the interference (we cannot erase a 
> memory than we cannot locate and isolate).
> 
> I think your comment illustrates the basic fallacy of your theory. You think 
> memory is a necessary condition for measurements to occur.

Not at all. I told you that measurement = interaction. Memory is needed just to 
repeat a measurement and share the results with others.
Memory is not needed for measurement to occur, but only to be … well, memorised 
and part of a living experience/life.

Even if just one photon interact with the dead+alive cat, the wave looks like 
collapsed to me, despite the absence of any real physical collapse, and me 
noticing nothing (and thus not doing the measurement myself).




> They occur independent memory, just like the multitude of events which 
> undoubtedly occur without any witnesses.

Sure.



> The memory, in the case of Feynman's thought experiment replacing a human 
> observer with a detector, just serves to validate or confirm that it did in 
> fact occur, AFTER THE FACT, and with interference. AG

No problem.

Bruno




> 
> Feynman formulation of QM exemplifies this.

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 two "worlds" that split by decoherence.
>> Yes, that is why the choice of the angle and the detector portioned the 
>> superposition in some way, but as Alice mind cannot impose a preference on 
>> this to nature and the psi state, she lost the ability to access to some 
>> worlds. Thus the multi-multiverse. Which I think is just the multiverse seen 
>> by taking account the quantum state is a Gauge state, having always a phase, 
>> except for the big whole. It is first person plural view, and thus psi is 
>> more epistemic than Everett would have liked, perhaps, and things are 
>> undoubtably subtle there. My point is that believing Everett remains non 
>> local is premature, at the least, and is usually based on some naive 
>> conception of “classical world”.
> 
> The classical world is epistemologically prior.  Everything about QM is 
> inferred and based on "classical" observation.  

That is coherent with Mechanism, which is essentially a classical theory. Note 
that formal QM is also a classical theory. Hilbert spaces re boolean notion.
The classical world, or logic is epistemologically prior. I am OK with this.

Bruno


> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 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 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:
> And you have not recovered the quantitative aspect of the quantum 
> structure,
 I did at the propositional level, which is enough to have the 
 quantum logic. It is richer than the quantum logic of the 
 physicians, so this predicts new things. 
>>> 
>>> What are they?
>> 
>> The consequence of the Löb’s formula translated in the quantum 
>> logical terms. Those are long and ugly formula, still beyond the 
>> reach of my (old) theorem prover.
> 
> So they are not testable.

 ?

 Some are testable and tested, and some are not *yet* derived, and thus 
 not tested, but they are testable of course. Not sure how you arrive 
 at your conclusion.

> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
> because you have not defined a measure on the computations of the 
> UD.
 Not yet, but I am willing to hear some constructive suggestion to 
 progress. 
>>> 
>>> Then how can you claim to have recovered quantum mechanics if you 
>>> cannot even define a probability amplitude that is linear?
>> 
>> 
>> Because I have recovered enough to classify those logics as quantum 
>> logic.
> 
> That's a far cry from quantum mechanics.

 But the UDA shows that if we don’t get quantum mechanics, it has to be 
 false, or mechanism is false. The whole point is that we can test this.

 The goal is to get a coherent picture in the computationalist frame. 
 Physicalism is *already* refuted.
>>> 
>>> No.  It is only your version of physicalism that is refuted.  The 
>>> assumption that what is physical cannot account for what is mental 
>>> because the mental is substrate independent and therefore is 
>>> independent of all substrate.  The last doesn't follow.
>> 
>> 
>> What is a substrate?
> 
> Supporting material.

 That is short. Arithmetic supports material (appearances), but here you 
 seem to say that a substrate would support some primary matter. The 
 physical accounts for the Material in non physicalist theories too. It is 
 just that the “material” appears to be a mode of the observable, definable 
 from self-reference.

> 
>> How you test its primary existence?
> 
> Whether it's existence is primary or not is irrelevant. 

 But then why criticise my use of it against physicalism? 
>>> 
>>> Because your argument was that matter cannot account for the mental. 
>> 
>> 
>> When we assume compationalism. Yes. In that case consciousness is associated 
>> with a digital self-referential entity which cannot distinguish a “bottom” 
>> (primary) physical reality from an arithmetical reality
> 
> But you didn't show that.  You only showed that it would be true if the 
> digital entity were immersed in an environment. 

Then put the digital rendering of the environment in the entity. If you cannot 
do that, then you assume something infinite, or magical, in the environment, 
and computationalism is false.

> You argued that the environment could also be digital…

No. The physical real environment will be given by the First Person 
indeterminacy (FPI) on all digital continuations in arithmetic. That is not 
susceptible of complete digital emulation. 

> but the doctor couldn't provide that.  But then your argument fails. 

Because you introduce some “God” (primary matter, or a unique Turing machine 
for the universe, like in digital physics) in the picture. Your argument is 
like rejecting evolution because the theory is unable to explain how God made 
all this in six day. 

> You've only shown that the digital entity can exist in

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 also have the SANE paper.

Yes I understood it introduced the UD and per the C-T inferred that all
possible computations are performed by it.

Bruno wrote,"In that case consciousness is associated with a digital
self-referential entity which cannot distinguish

a “bottom” (primary) physical reality from an arithmetical reality"

I objected, "But you didn't show that."

You responded, "This is directly the result at step 7 of the UDA. And it
is pretty much required for the Church Turing thesis to hold."

So I still don't see why the UD implies consciousness is associated with
a digital self-referential entity which cannot distinguish a “bottom”
(primary) physical reality from an arithmetical reality. It seems to me
like the rock that computes everything. The UD is effectively running
every possible simulation at once and so is simulating everything at
once. Whether some thread within it simulates you or simulates a rock
on alpha centauri becomes a matter of interpretation. The computations
of the UD can have no unique interpretation.

The entire UD is infinite. So it cannot exist in the physical universe.

Brent

nor any reasonable portions of it, so that our usual physical
predictions would be safe from any interference with its UD-generated
‘‘little’’ computational
histories. Such a move can be considered as being ad hoc and disgraceful. It
can also be...

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-20 Thread Russell Standish

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:

8) Yes, but what if we don’t grant a concrete robust physical universe? Up to
this
stage, we can still escape the conclusion of the seven preceding reasoning
steps, by
postulating that a ‘‘physical universe’’ really ‘‘exists’’ and is too little in
the sense of not being
able to generate the entire UD*, nor any reasonable portions of it, so that our
usual physical
predictions would be safe from any interference with its UD-generated
‘‘little’’ computational
histories. Such a move can be considered as being ad hoc and disgraceful. It
can also be...

Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au

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 distinguish
 a “bottom” (primary) physical reality from an arithmetical reality


But you didn't show that.

This is directly the result at step 7 of the UDA. And it is pretty much 
required for the Church Turing thesis to hold. Of course, step 7 relies on 
robustness of the *-verse, for which step 8 is the remedy.


You mean this?

/7) Although your surviving does not depend on the faraway events,//
//from the first person perspective the event "I survive at the//
//left edge (let us say) of the galaxy" could depend on the faraway//
//other reconstitution. The duplicability entails first person//
//indeterminisme, although everything is determinate for a third//
//person. (It is really the computationalist 3-determinateness //
//which entails the computationalist 1-indeterminateness)./

I don't understand the first sentence.  And I don't understand what 
"robustness" refers to?





But already, I believe the *-verse must be robust, as otherwise quantum 
computing supremacy will never work. Empirical support of this contention is 
due real soon now™. So I suspect step 8 could well be consigned to the dustbin 
of history...


You only showed that it would be true if the digital
entity were immersed in an environment.  You argued that the environment could
also be digital...but the doctor couldn't provide that.  But then your argument
fails.  You've only shown that the digital entity can exist in a digital
environment consisting of digital matter (including the entities digital
brain).  So you've just replicated the world except you've appended "digital"
in front of every noun and relation.  If everything is digital, then digital
matter may be primary in this digital world.  The adjective "digital" has lost
it's metaphysical significance...unless you can derive some observable
consequence of "digital".


This is a critique of step 8 (the MGA), which curryfies the environment into 
the computation. My money's on robustness being empirically confirmed in the 
next few decades...


We must be looking at some different enumeration of the argument.  I have:

/8) You are 'read' and annihilated in Brussels and the information//
//is send to Washington and Moscow. You are reconstituted at Washington//
//and the information is keep intact at Moscow during one year. Then//
//you are reconstituted at Moscow. (Duplication with assymmetric//
//delay). The point is the following: whatever the way you choose for//
//quantifying the 1-indeterminisme in the symmetric duplication, you//
//must quantifify in the same manner the assymmetric duplication.//
//This follows from COMP and 3. The first person cannot be aware of//
//the delays.//
/
Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-20 Thread agrayson2000



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 long 
> rotationally invariant.
>
> The rotational invariance of the singlet state has not been broken, and in 
> principle Alice can get back to it by quantum memory erasure, unless 
> collapse.
>
>
> 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 the relevant parts of my earlier post here:
>
> "The fact that Alice's interaction with the state is unitary and can be 
> reversed does not mean that the original symmetry still exists in some 
> sense. If I place a large weight at some point on the circumference of a 
> bicycle wheel, the rotational symmetry of that wheel is lost. The fact that 
> I can reverse the process by removing the imposed weight does not mean that 
> the altered wheel is still rotationally symmetric in some wider view."
>

*If you have time, can you explain what "rotationally symmetric", or not, 
means in this context? AG *

>
> and later in the same post:
>
> "It seems that you are basing your conviction that all physics is 
> ultimately local on the idea that all interactions are unitary 
> transformations of the universal wave function. But that is not sufficient. 
> You have also to postulate that the wave function itself is actually local. 
> And we know that that is not true. Because non-separable, that is, 
> non-local, states do actually exist within the universal wave function. As 
> Maudlin points out, the basing an argument for locality on the wave 
> function fails because the wave function itself is not a local object."
>

*Earlier, when I was arguing that the probability density of wf for double 
slit extends to plus and minus infinity (and therefore, at creation it 
occupies all space, sort-of expanding instantaneously), Brent criticized my 
claim as using unrealistic initial conditions, presumably because the 
screen has finite length), yet here you seem to agree with me. What, in 
your view, makes the wf a non-local object? AG * 

>
> Bruce
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-20 Thread Russell Standish

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” (primary) physical reality from an arithmetical reality
> 
> 
> But you didn't show that. 

This is directly the result at step 7 of the UDA. And it is pretty much 
required for the Church Turing thesis to hold. Of course, step 7 relies on 
robustness of the *-verse, for which step 8 is the remedy.

But already, I believe the *-verse must be robust, as otherwise quantum 
computing supremacy will never work. Empirical support of this contention is 
due real soon now™. So I suspect step 8 could well be consigned to the dustbin 
of history...

> You only showed that it would be true if the digital
> entity were immersed in an environment.  You argued that the environment could
> also be digital...but the doctor couldn't provide that.  But then your 
> argument
> fails.  You've only shown that the digital entity can exist in a digital
> environment consisting of digital matter (including the entities digital
> brain).  So you've just replicated the world except you've appended "digital"
> in front of every noun and relation.  If everything is digital, then digital
> matter may be primary in this digital world.  The adjective "digital" has lost
> it's metaphysical significance...unless you can derive some observable
> consequence of "digital".
>

This is a critique of step 8 (the MGA), which curryfies the environment into 
the computation. My money's on robustness being empirically confirmed in the 
next few decades...


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re:: Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-20 Thread Bruce Kellett


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 the relevant parts of my earlier post here:


"The fact that Alice's interaction with the state is unitary and can 
be reversed does not mean that the original symmetry still exists in 
some sense. If I place a large weight at some point on the 
circumference of a bicycle wheel, the rotational symmetry of that 
wheel is lost. The fact that I can reverse the process by removing 
the imposed weight does not mean that the altered wheel is still 
rotationally symmetric in some wider view.”


OK, but when the heavy object is removed, at that moment, the symmetry 
is back. Then, when Alice makes the measurement, the symmetry is lost 
from her point of view, but the general symmetry of the state has not 
changed. It is only not retrievable by Alice (unless quantum erasure, 
amnesia, etc.).


Bruno, you have not made the least effort to understand the point I made 
above, or to respond to it intelligently. It is difficult to believe 
that you are actually discussing this in good faith. You just keep 
repeating your own misunderstandings of the situation. The measurement 
that Alice makes destroys the symmetry. That is all there is to it. 
There is not some wider symmetry that is preserved.


Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 of the angle and the detector portioned the
superposition in some way, but as Alice mind cannot impose a preference on this
to nature and the psi state, she lost the ability to access to some worlds.
Thus the multi-multiverse. Which I think is just the multiverse seen by taking
account the quantum state is a Gauge state, having always a phase, except for
the big whole. It is first person plural view, and thus psi is more epistemic
than Everett would have liked, perhaps, and things are undoubtably subtle
there. My point is that believing Everett remains non local is premature, at
the least, and is usually based on some naive conception of “classical world”.

The classical world is epistemologically prior. Everything about QM is
inferred and based on "classical" observation.

Brent

Re: Many-minds interpretation?




On 8/20/2018 11:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 20 Aug 2018, at 19:55, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 8/20/2018 2:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 19 Aug 2018, at 21:23, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 8/19/2018 2:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


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 Meeker > wrote:




On 8/15/2018 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

And you have not recovered the quantitative aspect of the quantum structure,

I did at the propositional level, which is enough to have the quantum logic. It 
is richer than the quantum logic of the physicians, so this predicts new things.


What are they?


The consequence of the Löb’s formula translated in the quantum 
logical terms. Those are long and ugly formula, still beyond 
the reach of my (old) theorem prover.


So they are not testable.


?

Some are testable and tested, and some are not *yet* derived, 
and thus not tested, but they are testable of course. Not sure 
how you arrive at your conclusion.
















because you have not defined a measure on the computations of the UD.

Not yet, but I am willing to hear some constructive suggestion to progress.


Then how can you claim to have recovered quantum mechanics if 
you cannot even define a probability amplitude that is linear?



Because I have recovered enough to classify those logics as 
quantum logic.


That's a far cry from quantum mechanics.


But the UDA shows that if we don’t get quantum mechanics, it has 
to be false, or mechanism is false. The whole point is that we 
can test this.


The goal is to get a coherent picture in the computationalist 
frame. Physicalism is *already* refuted.


No.  It is only your version of physicalism that is refuted.  The 
assumption that what is physical cannot account for what is 
mental because the mental is substrate independent and therefore 
is independent of all substrate.  The last doesn't follow.



What is a substrate?


Supporting material.


That is short. Arithmetic supports material (appearances), but here 
you seem to say that a substrate would support some primary matter. 
The physical accounts for the Material in non physicalist theories 
too. It is just that the “material” appears to be a mode of the 
observable, definable from self-reference.








How you test its primary existence?


Whether it's existence is primary or not is irrelevant.


But then why criticise my use of it against physicalism?


Because your argument was that matter cannot account for the mental.



When we assume compationalism. Yes. In that case consciousness is 
associated with a digital self-referential entity which cannot 
distinguish a “bottom” (primary) physical reality from an arithmetical 
reality


But you didn't show that.  You only showed that it would be true if the 
digital entity were immersed in an environment.  You argued that the 
environment could also be digital...but the doctor couldn't provide 
that.  But then your argument fails.  You've only shown that the digital 
entity can exist in a digital environment consisting of digital matter 
(including the entities digital brain).  So you've just replicated the 
world except you've appended "digital" in front of every noun and 
relation.  If everything is digital, then digital matter may be primary 
in this digital world.  The adjective "digital" has lost it's 
metaphysical significance...unless you can derive some observable 
consequence of "digital".


Brent

(or you have to tell me how that matter intervenes and if that is not 
computing emulable, you can’t say no more yes to the doctor).


A computation is realised in a semantical structure (a model in the 
sense of the logicians, when the relative truth making up the relevant 
computations are satisfied (like the neurons acts due to this or that 
conditions, etc.).


The machine cannot feel that distinction, but what I show is that it 
can verify it by observation, by comparing the arithmetical physical 
modes and the physical inferred from observation.




  That question is independent of whether matter or thought or 
arithmetic or whatever is fundamental.


?





Your argument seems to be that computationalism implies that thoughts 
can be instantiated by many different material events (e.g. cosmic 
rays striking neurons, a record)


No. The cosmic way is used to criticize that idea.  The movie graph 
show that invoking matter to solve the computationalist mind-body 
problem is as much absurd than invoking holy water or god in a 
metaphysical argument. It does not work, even if locally, the *human* 
consciousness is implemented in the physical realm. That physical 
realm cannot be invoked, but must be explained by

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:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 chose a partition of the multiverse, 
>> which is a sort of multi-multiverse. Without this, not only we have FTL, 
>> but we get super-determinism. Alice is no more choosing anything.
> But already with no-collapse multiverse  you have super determinism.
 ?
 
 
 
> The only question is where different branches of possibility diverge.  
> Alice's choosing is, in the usual case, a deterministic choice, not one 
> that produces or identifies her with a different branch than the one 
> before her choice.  It just muddles the argument to introduce the 
> measurement directions as different possibilities.
 Yet, if she has a “real ability to chose”, that will determine the type of 
 branch she can found herself in. If not, the singlet state cannot be 
 rotationally invariant. The singlet state gives an infinity of 
 superposition possibles. We forget this by assuming that ud is supposed to 
 du, but u’d is superposed with d’u’ too.
>>> 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 
>>> invariant.
>> The rotational invariance of the singlet state has not been broken, and in 
>> principle Alice can get back to it by quantum memory erasure, unless 
>> collapse.
> 
> Yes, by erasing her interaction with it.   But the interaction term depends 
> on her choice of detector orientation, so the symmetry is broken by the 
> interaction even before there is decoherence...which is why it is possible to 
> erase it.

Interaction = entanglement =decoherence, and it seems irreversible when it 
involves to big numbers to memorise and “tracks”.

I would say, in Everett. (Not sure for mechanism here, it is premature to ask).

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
 Bruno
 
 
 
 
 
 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 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 Meeker  > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/15/2018 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> And you have not recovered the quantitative aspect of the quantum 
>>> structure,
>> I did at the propositional level, which is enough to have the 
>> quantum logic. It is richer than the quantum logic of the 
>> physicians, so this predicts new things. 
> 
> What are they?
 
 The consequence of the Löb’s formula translated in the quantum logical 
 terms. Those are long and ugly formula, still beyond the reach of my 
 (old) theorem prover.
>>> 
>>> So they are not testable.
>> 
>> ?
>> 
>> Some are testable and tested, and some are not *yet* derived, and thus 
>> not tested, but they are testable of course. Not sure how you arrive at 
>> your conclusion.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 
 
 
 
 
> 
>>> because you have not defined a measure on the computations of the 
>>> UD.
>> Not yet, but I am willing to hear some constructive suggestion to 
>> progress. 
> 
> Then how can you claim to have recovered quantum mechanics if you 
> cannot even define a probability amplitude that is linear?
 
 
 Because I have recovered enough to classify those logics as quantum 
 logic.
>>> 
>>> That's a far cry from quantum mechanics.
>> 
>> But the UDA shows that if we don’t get quantum mechanics, it has to be 
>> false, or mechanism is false. The whole point is that we can test this.
>> 
>> The goal is to get a coherent picture in the computationalist frame. 
>> Physicalism is *already* refuted.
> 
> No.  It is only your version of physicalism that is refuted.  The 
> assumption that what is physical cannot account for what is mental 
> because the mental is substrate independent and therefore is independent 
> of all substrate.  The last doesn't follow.
 
 
 What is a substrate?
>>> 
>>> Supporting material.
>> 
>> That is short. Arithmetic supports material (appearances), but here you seem 
>> to say that a substrate would support some primary matter. The physical 
>> accounts for the Material in non physicalist theories too. It is just that 
>> the “material” appears to be a mode of the observable, definable from 
>> self-reference.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 How you test its primary existence?
>>> 
>>> Whether it's existence is primary or not is irrelevant. 
>> 
>> But then why criticise my use of it against physicalism? 
> 
> Because your argument was that matter cannot account for the mental. 


When we assume compationalism. Yes. In that case consciousness is associated 
with a digital self-referential entity which cannot distinguish a “bottom” 
(primary) physical reality from an arithmetical reality (or you have to tell me 
how that matter intervenes and if that is not computing emulable, you can’t say 
no more yes to the doctor).

A computation is realised in a semantical structure (a model in the sense of 
the logicians, when the relative truth making up the relevant computations are 
satisfied (like the neurons acts due to this or that conditions, etc.).

The machine cannot feel that distinction, but what I show is that it can verify 
it by observation, by comparing the arithmetical physical modes and the 
physical inferred from observation.



>   That question is independent of whether matter or thought or arithmetic or 
> whatever is fundamental.

?



> 
> Your argument seems to be that computationalism implies that thoughts can be 
> instantiated by many different material events (e.g. cosmic rays striking 
> neurons, a record)

No. The cosmic way is used to criticize that idea.  The movie graph show that 
invoking matter to solve the computationalist mind-body problem is as much 
absurd than invoking holy water or god in a metaphysical argument. It does not 
work, even if locally, the *human* consciousness is implemented in the physical 
realm. That physical realm cannot be invoked, but must be explained by the 
measure on all sigma_1 sentences/computations.



> therefore a thought is characterized by

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 she measure u’, Bob get d’ (with certainly, if they have decided to
measure in the same base u’d’ before). To account for that, obviously maintaining locality, we must
take into account the initial uncertainty, due to psi = (|u>|d> - |d>|u>)/sqrt(2) =
(|u'>|d'> - |d'>|u'>)/sqrt(2).

But that is a classical uncertainty as to which detect angle Alice chooses and
you have muddled the picture by leaving the detector and it's angle out of the
equation, and writing only the particle spin part down.

Adding Alice will change nothing,

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.

Brent

unless from her point of view if she “irreversibly” memorise her outcome; then
the symmetry is locally broken, but I am not sure for the “universal wave”
describing Alice + Bob + the particles. There is no mixture states there.

Bruno

Brent

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 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 chose a partition of the multiverse, which is a sort of 
multi-multiverse. Without this, not only we have FTL, but we get 
super-determinism. Alice is no more choosing anything.

But already with no-collapse multiverse  you have super determinism.

?




The only question is where different branches of possibility diverge.  Alice's 
choosing is, in the usual case, a deterministic choice, not one that produces 
or identifies her with a different branch than the one before her choice.  It 
just muddles the argument to introduce the measurement directions as different 
possibilities.

Yet, if she has a “real ability to chose”, that will determine the type of 
branch she can found herself in. If not, the singlet state cannot be 
rotationally invariant. The singlet state gives an infinity of superposition 
possibles. We forget this by assuming that ud is supposed to du, but u’d is 
superposed with d’u’ too.

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 
invariant.

The rotational invariance of the singlet state has not been broken, and in 
principle Alice can get back to it by quantum memory erasure, unless collapse.


Yes, by erasing her interaction with it.   But the interaction term 
depends on her choice of detector orientation, so the symmetry is broken 
by the interaction even before there is decoherence...which is why it is 
possible to erase it.


Brent



Bruno




Brent


Bruno







Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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:


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:

And you have not recovered the quantitative aspect of the quantum structure,

I did at the propositional level, which is enough to have the quantum logic. It 
is richer than the quantum logic of the physicians, so this predicts new things.


What are they?


The consequence of the Löb’s formula translated in the quantum 
logical terms. Those are long and ugly formula, still beyond the 
reach of my (old) theorem prover.


So they are not testable.


?

Some are testable and tested, and some are not *yet* derived, and 
thus not tested, but they are testable of course. Not sure how you 
arrive at your conclusion.
















because you have not defined a measure on the computations of the UD.

Not yet, but I am willing to hear some constructive suggestion to progress.


Then how can you claim to have recovered quantum mechanics if 
you cannot even define a probability amplitude that is linear?



Because I have recovered enough to classify those logics as 
quantum logic.


That's a far cry from quantum mechanics.


But the UDA shows that if we don’t get quantum mechanics, it has 
to be false, or mechanism is false. The whole point is that we can 
test this.


The goal is to get a coherent picture in the computationalist 
frame. Physicalism is *already* refuted.


No.  It is only your version of physicalism that is refuted.  The 
assumption that what is physical cannot account for what is mental 
because the mental is substrate independent and therefore is 
independent of all substrate.  The last doesn't follow.



What is a substrate?


Supporting material.


That is short. Arithmetic supports material (appearances), but here 
you seem to say that a substrate would support some primary matter. 
The physical accounts for the Material in non physicalist theories 
too. It is just that the “material” appears to be a mode of the 
observable, definable from self-reference.








How you test its primary existence?


Whether it's existence is primary or not is irrelevant.


But then why criticise my use of it against physicalism?


Because your argument was that matter cannot account for the mental.   
That question is independent of whether matter or thought or arithmetic 
or whatever is fundamental.


Your argument seems to be that computationalism implies that thoughts 
can be instantiated by many different material events (e.g. cosmic rays 
striking neurons, a record) therefore a thought is characterized by 
something independent of matter and it can be instantiated in the 
immaterial relations of languages, e.g. arithmetic, combinatorics,...  
But that is a cheat because "characterized" =/="instantiated".   
Anything can be characterized in language.  That fits very well with 
this list which was started by people who liked the idea of everything 
and anything from a philosophical perspective because it excused them 
from explaining why this rather than that.  But explaining why this 
rather than that is exactly what is science's job.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 superposition for the chosen (typical) basis.
>> 
>> OK. But if it is not a preferred base, then how do you interpret the 
>> superposition in the singlet state, without giving some special role to some 
>> base?
> 
> I do not give any special role to a particular basis. Alice does that by 
> choosing the orientation for her magnet.

But the reasoning should not depend on that choice.



> The interaction of that magnet with the state breaks the symmetry

In her head. 




> and gives a special role to the basis along which the magnetic field is 
> aligned.

Yes.




> This is a consequence of the interaction Hamiltonian between the magnet and 
> the spinor: the inhomogeneous magnetic field couples to the intrinsic 
> magnetic moment of the spin-half particle, so the particle moves in the 
> direction of the field -- either up or down from its forward trajectory. Read 
> my recent re-post of a discussion of this symmetry breaking interaction.

But that argument shows well that ud-du = u’d’ -d’u'. Both can be used for any 
angle chosen by Alice. Once the angle chosen, but not yet measured, Alice can 
find any result among two. By doing the measurement she locate herself in all 
the branches which her spin is down or up along that direction, with the 
corresponding Bob. The FTL is apparent only if we say that her direction is … 
typical or something. It is not, and with the many-views of the singlet state, 
we can dismiss the idea that a true action at a distance has taken place. That 
is enough to invalidate the idea that EPR-BELL requires FTL action at a 
distance (the point I tried to make to John).

Bruno





> 
> Bruce
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 a product with the singlet state the result is no long 
>> > rotationally invariant.
>> 
>> The rotational invariance of the singlet state has not been broken, and in 
>> principle Alice can get back to it by quantum memory erasure, unless 
>> collapse.
> 
> 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 the relevant parts of my earlier post here:
> 
> "The fact that Alice's interaction with the state is unitary and can be 
> reversed does not mean that the original symmetry still exists in some sense. 
> If I place a large weight at some point on the circumference of a bicycle 
> wheel, the rotational symmetry of that wheel is lost. The fact that I can 
> reverse the process by removing the imposed weight does not mean that the 
> altered wheel is still rotationally symmetric in some wider view.”

OK, but when the heavy object is removed, at that moment, the symmetry is back. 
Then, when Alice makes the measurement, the symmetry is lost from her point of 
view, but the general symmetry of the state has not changed. It is only not 
retrievable by Alice (unless quantum erasure, amnesia, etc.).

> 
> and later in the same post:
> 
> "It seems that you are basing your conviction

I have no conviction. It just that I claim that there is not yet a proof that 
there are FTL physical *influence* in one semi-classical universe which would 
be a branch of the universal wave. Violation of Bell’s inequality can be 
explained by “Bertlmann socks” (common cause) in the MWI, without a too much 
“classical” (naive) conception of world. My point was just a reply to Clark, 
and honestly it looks to me you have oscillated on this. 

> that all physics is ultimately local on the idea that all interactions are 
> unitary transformations of the universal wave function.

That is not my argument, except if you use this to show that a classical 
computer can emulate a quantum computer. 

On the contrary, I thought that any physics emerging from arithmetic would be 
“non-local”, with apparent FTL influence, but later I realise that this would 
be of the white rabbit style of events. That should be excessively rare.

> But that is not sufficient. You have also to postulate that the wave function 
> itself is actually local.

I don’t see what you mean by this. The wave spread locally, even singlet. It 
has the shape of e^iH(t). Only its collapse brings a genuine FTL. 

> And we know that that is not true. Because non-separable, that is, non-local, 
> states do actually exist within the universal wave function. As Maudlin 
> points out, the basing an argument for locality on the wave function fails 
> because the wave function itself is not a local object.”

I will wait reading maudlin 2011. Locality is a space-time notion, as your 
appeal to EPR = ER suggests. I do not understand what it would mean for a wave 
to be non local. In fact, without any collapse, I do not see how QM could 
generate an instantaneous  FTL influence. And the argument of Bell’s inequality 
is not valid, as I gave an interpretation (à-la Many-Minds) where EPR is 
recovered without FTL, by using common cause. I agree that a singlet state 
remains rather weird, but I think that this is the case in all interpretation 
or theories, and that MW is the one the most plausible (indeed enforced by 
independent non physical argument).

Bruno

> 
> Bruce
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 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 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 collapse in the picture. That’s 
> my feeling, as this is not clear. When measuring a spin: there are two 
> possible values *for all possible direction of the spin*.
 
 For all possible directions of the spin measurement.  There is nothing 
 about Alice or Bob that makes all directions possible except in the 
 classical sense of "possible".
 
> That makes infinitely many worlds.
 
 But you have elsewhere renounced the view that everything possible happens.
 
 He's affirming the error that's at the root of the MW nonsense; namely, 
 everything that's possible to happen, must happen. AG 
>>> 
>>> With *different* relative probabilities, given by the square of the 
>>> amplitude, (in QM) and by the material mode in the theology of the machine. 
>>> Yes, the physical “knowledge” is always purely statistical, in both QM and 
>>> Mechanism.
>>> 
>>> Do you understand English? Your reply is inapposite to my comment. AG 
>> 
>> “Affirming the error” is ambiguous. 
>> 
>> I just meant that your application or interpretation of QM assumes that 
>> every outcome that is possible, must be realized, or measured, or observed. 
>> I don't see any basis (reason) for making this assumption. If you have one, 
>> which can be stated without appeal to arithmetic, I'd like to see it argued. 
>> AG 
> 
> It is dictated by the wave equation (or Heisenberg Matrix). The worlds are 
> (notably) the relative state defined by the branch of the superposition, and 
> we cannot throw them away. That is so true that the founders of QM invented 
> the notion of an observer collapsing the wave to select the outcome they saw, 
> but that addition violates the SWE. That is reasonable FAPP, but it 
> presupposes that the observer does NOT obey the SWE, and this introduce a 
> dubious dualism (incompatible with Mechanism, among other absurdities, like 
> FTL, etc.).
> 
> IMO, this is an inadequate justification for assuming that every eigenvalue 
> that can be measured, that is possible to be measured, must be measured.

The whole point of the MW is that a measurement is explained as a classical 
mechanical events, or a thermodynamical event which has to be locally 
irreversible so as to memorisable. 




> There is nothing in the SWE that requires this. Further, as you have be 
> informed many times here, there is no requirement that collapse must be 
> caused by a human observer.

No collapse = MW (except for the guiding wave theory which is as much MW than 
Everett, as Bell argued once, but  with added particles so as to select one 
history among many).




> Feynman showed by a simple argument that this is unnecessary. Just let an 
> instrument record the outcomes. AG


That is exactly my point. Measurement (in the mechanical sense of Feynman and 
Everett) are usually done by the environment itself, which is not recordable, 
and so we lost the ability to get back the interference (we cannot erase a 
memory than we cannot locate and isolate).

Feynman formulation of QM exemplifies this. It is rather typically without 
collapse. The collapse has been invented to avoid QM being applied to us, so 
that we can still believe that we and our universe are unique. But then the SWE 
does no more work universally, and we need some dualist theory of mind, like 
Penrose proposed (rather unconvincingly). 

Measurement = interaction +memory, like in the mechanist theory of mind.


Bruno



>  
> Bruno 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Bruno
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 
 Brent
 
> Same for an electronic orbital. There are as many world that the possible 
> position of the  electron in the orbitals. Are you OK with this? I try to 
> figure out what is your interpretation of the SWE.
 
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 "Everything List" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com <>.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com <>.
 Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
 .
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout

Re:: Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-20 Thread Bruce Kellett

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 invariant.

The rotational invariance of the singlet state has not been broken, 
and in principle Alice can get back to it by quantum memory erasure, 
unless collapse.

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 the relevant parts of my earlier post here:

"The fact that Alice's interaction with the state is unitary and can be 
reversed does not mean that the original symmetry still exists in some 
sense. If I place a large weight at some point on the circumference of a 
bicycle wheel, the rotational symmetry of that wheel is lost. The fact 
that I can reverse the process by removing the imposed weight does not 
mean that the altered wheel is still rotationally symmetric in some 
wider view."

and later in the same post:

"It seems that you are basing your conviction that all physics is 
ultimately local on the idea that all interactions are unitary 
transformations of the universal wave function. But that is not 
sufficient. You have also to postulate that the wave function itself is 
actually local. And we know that that is not true. Because 
non-separable, that is, non-local, states do actually exist within the 
universal wave function. As Maudlin points out, the basing an argument 
for locality on the wave function fails because the wave function itself 
is not a local object."

Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 here. If you thought a bit rather 
>> than go with feelings, we might be better off. I do not introduce a 
>> preferred basis. Where do you think I do that? You argue against a straw 
>> man, as usual. A typical base is not a preferred base.
>> 
>> Since you could have chosen u - d and u + d as the basis, cannot u and d be 
>> considered a preferred basis? AG
> 
> The (u-d), (u+d) base is just a 90 degree rotation of the u,d base. It could 
> be relevant if you oriented your magnets that way rather than in the u,d 
> direction. As usual, Bruno has muddied the waters here by introducing the 
> idea that |u> and |d> form a preferred basis.


Only for those who interpret ud-du as a superposition of ud and du, when it 
describes an infinity of superposition possibles. That is the problem with the 
tensor product: the same state describes different superposition possible.
I still have no idea of your MW interpretation of the singlet state. Each time 
you give it, it seems to refer to some collapse, or to chose a “typical" base.

(Your patronising tone does not help)

Bruno




> That is not the case, because the usual "preferred basis problem" of the MWI 
> concerns the stability of any particular basis under environmental 
> decoherence. Here the basis is chosen according to the orientation of the 
> magnets -- there is no idea of preference under decoherence involved; the 
> only consideration is that the basis in the direction of the magnets is the 
> one in which you can most easily make verifiable predictions. You could work 
> in some other basis if you are so stupid, but that has no effect other than 
> to complicate you calculations. It would not affect the physics.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 d’ (with 
>> certainly, if they have decided to measure in the same base u’d’ before). To 
>> account for that, obviously maintaining locality,  we must  take into 
>> account the initial uncertainty, due to psi = (|u>|d> - |d>|u>)/sqrt(2) = 
>> (|u'>|d'> - |d'>|u'>)/sqrt(2).
> 
> But that is a classical uncertainty as to which detect angle Alice chooses 
> and you have muddled the picture by leaving the detector and it's angle out 
> of the equation, and writing only the particle spin part down.

Adding Alice will change nothing, unless from her point of view if she 
“irreversibly” memorise her outcome; then the symmetry is locally broken, but I 
am not sure for the “universal wave” describing Alice + Bob + the particles. 
There is no mixture states there. 

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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.
 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 chose a partition of the multiverse, 
 which is a sort of multi-multiverse. Without this, not only we have FTL, 
 but we get super-determinism. Alice is no more choosing anything.
>>> But already with no-collapse multiverse  you have super determinism.
>> ?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> The only question is where different branches of possibility diverge.  
>>> Alice's choosing is, in the usual case, a deterministic choice, not one 
>>> that produces or identifies her with a different branch than the one before 
>>> her choice.  It just muddles the argument to introduce the measurement 
>>> directions as different possibilities.
>> Yet, if she has a “real ability to chose”, that will determine the type of 
>> branch she can found herself in. If not, the singlet state cannot be 
>> rotationally invariant. The singlet state gives an infinity of superposition 
>> possibles. We forget this by assuming that ud is supposed to du, but u’d is 
>> superposed with d’u’ too.
> 
> 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 
> invariant.

The rotational invariance of the singlet state has not been broken, and in 
principle Alice can get back to it by quantum memory erasure, unless collapse.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 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:
> And you have not recovered the quantitative aspect of the quantum 
> structure,
 I did at the propositional level, which is enough to have the quantum 
 logic. It is richer than the quantum logic of the physicians, so this 
 predicts new things. 
>>> 
>>> What are they?
>> 
>> The consequence of the Löb’s formula translated in the quantum logical 
>> terms. Those are long and ugly formula, still beyond the reach of my 
>> (old) theorem prover.
> 
> So they are not testable.
 
 ?
 
 Some are testable and tested, and some are not *yet* derived, and thus not 
 tested, but they are testable of course. Not sure how you arrive at your 
 conclusion.
 
 
 
 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
> because you have not defined a measure on the computations of the UD.
 Not yet, but I am willing to hear some constructive suggestion to 
 progress. 
>>> 
>>> Then how can you claim to have recovered quantum mechanics if you 
>>> cannot even define a probability amplitude that is linear?
>> 
>> 
>> Because I have recovered enough to classify those logics as quantum 
>> logic.
> 
> That's a far cry from quantum mechanics.
 
 But the UDA shows that if we don’t get quantum mechanics, it has to be 
 false, or mechanism is false. The whole point is that we can test this.
 
 The goal is to get a coherent picture in the computationalist frame. 
 Physicalism is *already* refuted.
>>> 
>>> No.  It is only your version of physicalism that is refuted.  The 
>>> assumption that what is physical cannot account for what is mental because 
>>> the mental is substrate independent and therefore is independent of all 
>>> substrate.  The last doesn't follow.
>> 
>> 
>> What is a substrate?
> 
> Supporting material.

That is short. Arithmetic supports material (appearances), but here you seem to 
say that a substrate would support some primary matter. The physical accounts 
for the Material in non physicalist theories too. It is just that the 
“material” appears to be a mode of the observable, definable from 
self-reference.




> 
>> How you test its primary existence?
> 
> Whether it's existence is primary or not is irrelevant. 

But then why criticise my use of it against physicalism? 



> Concrete can be the substrate of a building whether it is primary or has a 
> substrate of atoms.

Then I am not sure we have disagreed. 




> 
>> How does a substrate select a computation, given the mechanist first person 
>> indeterminacy ?
> 
> Concrete doesn't necessarily select the building, it supports it.  In our 
> particular case it seems that evolution of carbon chemistry has selected a 
> computation as reproductively advantageous.

Same here. 

Bruno






> 
> Brent
> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>>> .
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
>>> .
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>>> .
>> 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List"

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 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 Bob have prepared that state, but that state represents also another 
 superposition, like |psi> = (|u'>|d'> - |d'>|u'>)/sqrt(2). Why would |psi> 
 denotes a superposition of |u>|d> and  |d>|u> and not |u'>|d'> and  
 |d'>|u’>. It seems to me that you choose a particular base, when Everett 
 makes clear that this would lead to nonsense. The physical state represent 
 by |psi> must be the same whatever base is chosen.
>>> 
>>> Of course. When Have I ever said otherwise? Let me spell it out for you. 
>>> The basis vectors |u> and |d> are just examples -- place holders if you 
>>> like -- for whatever basis vectors are most convenient for your purposes. 
>>> Given the expression in terms of |u> and |d>, we can always rotate to 
>>> another basis by applying the formulae for the rotation of spinors that I 
>>> gave in my paper:
>>> 
>>> |u> =  cos(theta/2)|u'> + sin(theta/2)|d'>,
>>> |d> = -sin(theta/2)|u'> + cos(theta/2)|d'>.
>>> 
>>> Substitute these expressions in the above, and you will get the state in 
>>> terms of the rotated spinors:
>>> 
>>>psi = (|u>|d> - |d>|u>)/sqrt(2) = (|u'>|d'> - |d'>|u'>)/sqrt(2).
>>> 
>>> That is what is meant by rotational symmetry, and that is all there is to 
>>> it. Nothing could be simpler.
>> 
>> No problem with this.
> 
> Maybe you just need to apply this insight a little more carefully.
> 
 That leads to considering that psi describes not one superposition, but 
 many superposition. That get worse with GHZ and n-particles state, and 
 that is why I have often (in this list or on the FOR list of Deutsch) 
 explained why the multiverse is a multi-multi-multi-… multi-verse. I don’t 
 insist too much because  more careful analysis would require a quantum 
 theory of space-time, and the Everett theory will certainly needs some 
 improvement.
>>> 
>>> |psi> does not describe just one superposition
>> 
>> Good. That is the key point.
> 
> You jump in too quickly with your typical misunderstanding. Read the rest of 
> the sentence/paragraph before you jump to conclusions.
> 
>>> -- by rotation the spinors we can go to any basis whatsoever. You certainly 
>>> do not get many superpositions, one for each possible basis. Let me spell 
>>> out in detail how superpositions arise in Everettian quantum mechanics. You 
>>> start with a state |psi>, which is just a vector in the appropriate Hilbert 
>>> space. The Hilbert space is spanned by a complete set of orthonormal 
>>> eigenvectors for each operator in that space. Again, the basis is not 
>>> unique, so we can perform an arbitrary rotation in the Hilbert space to any 
>>> other set of vectors that span the space. But this is rather beside the 
>>> point, because we usually choose a basis because it is useful, not just 
>>> because it is possible. (This relates to the preferred basis problem, which 
>>> I prefer not to got into at the moment.)
>> 
>> 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 feelings, we might be better off. I do not introduce a preferred 
> basis. Where do you think I do that? You argue against a straw man, as usual. 
> A typical base is not a preferred base.


What is a typical base?




> 
>>> Given a basis, the state |psi> can be expanded in terms of these basis 
>>> vectors:
>>> 
>>> |psi> = Sum_i c_i |a_i>,
>>> 
>>> where we the basis we have chosen is the set of eigenvectors for some 
>>> operator A and labelled them by the corresponding eigenvalues.  This 
>>> expansion is the basis of the superposition, and of the formation of 
>>> relative states (or parallel universes, or the many worlds of Everett.) We 
>>> operate on the vector |psi> with the operator A, which gives
>>> 
>>>A|psi> = A(Sum_i c_i|a_i>) = Sum_i c_i a_i |a_i>
>>> 
>>> where |c_i|^2 is the probability that we will be in the state relative to 
>>> the observed eigenvalue, a_i. We could continue the operation of the 
>>> Schrödinger equation to include the apparatus for operator A, the observer, 
>>> and the rest of the environment, but you should be able to do this for 
>>> yourself.
>>> 
>>> The point is that this is the only way in which superpositions can be 
>>> formed, and from those superpositions, the many worlds or relative states 
>>> of Everett develop by normal Schrödinger evolution. But you do not have 
>>> such a

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-20 Thread agrayson2000



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 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 collapse in the picture. That’s 
 my feeling, as this is not clear. When measuring a spin: there are two 
 possible values *for all possible direction of the spin*. 


 For all possible directions of the spin *measurement*.  There is 
 nothing about Alice or Bob that makes all directions *possible* except 
 in the classical sense of "possible".

 That makes infinitely many worlds. 


 But you have elsewhere renounced the view that everything possible 
 happens.

>>>
>>> *He's affirming the error that's at the root of the MW nonsense; namely, 
>>> everything that's possible to happen, must happen. AG *
>>>
>>>
>>> With *different* relative probabilities, given by the square of the 
>>> amplitude, (in QM) and by the material mode in the theology of the machine. 
>>> Yes, the physical “knowledge” is always purely statistical, in both QM and 
>>> Mechanism.
>>>
>>
>> *Do you understand English? Your reply is inapposite to my comment. AG *
>>
>>
>> “Affirming the error” is ambiguous. 
>>
>
> *I just meant that your application or interpretation of QM assumes that 
> every outcome that is possible, must be realized, or measured, or observed. 
> I don't see any basis (reason) for making this assumption. If you have one, 
> which can be stated without appeal to arithmetic, I'd like to see it 
> argued. AG *
>
>
> It is dictated by the wave equation (or Heisenberg Matrix). The worlds are 
> (notably) the relative state defined by the branch of the superposition, 
> and we cannot throw them away. That is so true that the founders of QM 
> invented the notion of an observer collapsing the wave to select the 
> outcome they saw, but that addition violates the SWE. That is reasonable 
> FAPP, but it presupposes that the observer does NOT obey the SWE, and this 
> introduce a dubious dualism (incompatible with Mechanism, among other 
> absurdities, like FTL, etc.).
>


*IMO, this is an inadequate justification for assuming that every 
eigenvalue that can be measured, that is possible to be measured, must be 
measured. There is nothing in the SWE that requires this. Further, as you 
have be informed many times here, there is no requirement that collapse 
must be caused by a human observer. Feynman showed by a simple argument 
that this is unnecessary. Just let an instrument record the outcomes. AG*

>  
> Bruno 
>
>
>
>
>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
 Brent

 Same for an electronic orbital. There are as many world that the 
 possible position of the  electron in the orbitals. Are you OK with this? 
 I 
 try to figure out what is your interpretation of the SWE.



>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at

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 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 collapse in the picture. That’s my 
 feeling, as this is not clear. When measuring a spin: there are two 
 possible values *for all possible direction of the spin*.
>>> 
>>> For all possible directions of the spin measurement.  There is nothing 
>>> about Alice or Bob that makes all directions possible except in the 
>>> classical sense of "possible".
>>> 
 That makes infinitely many worlds.
>>> 
>>> But you have elsewhere renounced the view that everything possible happens.
>>> 
>>> He's affirming the error that's at the root of the MW nonsense; namely, 
>>> everything that's possible to happen, must happen. AG 
>> 
>> With *different* relative probabilities, given by the square of the 
>> amplitude, (in QM) and by the material mode in the theology of the machine. 
>> Yes, the physical “knowledge” is always purely statistical, in both QM and 
>> Mechanism.
>> 
>> Do you understand English? Your reply is inapposite to my comment. AG 
> 
> “Affirming the error” is ambiguous. 
> 
> I just meant that your application or interpretation of QM assumes that every 
> outcome that is possible, must be realized, or measured, or observed. I don't 
> see any basis (reason) for making this assumption. If you have one, which can 
> be stated without appeal to arithmetic, I'd like to see it argued. AG 

It is dictated by the wave equation (or Heisenberg Matrix). The worlds are 
(notably) the relative state defined by the branch of the superposition, and we 
cannot throw them away. That is so true that the founders of QM invented the 
notion of an observer collapsing the wave to select the outcome they saw, but 
that addition violates the SWE. That is reasonable FAPP, but it presupposes 
that the observer does NOT obey the SWE, and this introduce a dubious dualism 
(incompatible with Mechanism, among other absurdities, like FTL, etc.).
 
Bruno 




> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
 Same for an electronic orbital. There are as many world that the possible 
 position of the  electron in the orbitals. Are you OK with this? I try to 
 figure out what is your interpretation of the SWE.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com <>.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com <>.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>>> .
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re:: Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-19 Thread Bruce Kellett

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 feelings, we might be better off. I do not
introduce a preferred basis. Where do you think I do that? You
argue against a straw man, as usual. A typical base is not a
preferred base.

*
Since you could have chosen u - d and u + d as the basis, cannot u and 
d be considered a preferred basis? AG*

The (u-d), (u+d) base is just a 90 degree rotation of the u,d base. It 
could be relevant if you oriented your magnets that way rather than in 
the u,d direction. As usual, Bruno has muddied the waters here by 
introducing the idea that |u> and |d> form a preferred basis. That is 
not the case, because the usual "preferred basis problem" of the MWI 
concerns the stability of any particular basis under environmental 
decoherence. Here the basis is chosen according to the orientation of 
the magnets -- there is no idea of preference under decoherence 
involved; the only consideration is that the basis in the direction of 
the magnets is the one in which you can most easily make verifiable 
predictions. You could work in some other basis if you are so stupid, 
but that has no effect other than to complicate you calculations. It 
would not affect the physics.

Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-19 Thread agrayson2000



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 interpret
>
> |psi> = (|u>|d> - |d>|u>)/sqrt(2)
>
> as a unique superposition. It seems to me you can do that because Alice 
> and Bob have prepared that state, but that state represents also another 
> superposition, like |psi> = (|u'>|d'> - |d'>|u'>)/sqrt(2). Why would |psi> 
> denotes a superposition of |u>|d> and  |d>|u> and not |u'>|d'> and 
>  |d'>|u’>. It seems to me that you choose a particular base, when Everett 
> makes clear that this would lead to nonsense. The physical state represent 
> by |psi> must be the same whatever base is chosen.
>
>
> Of course. When Have I ever said otherwise? Let me spell it out for you. 
> The basis vectors |u> and |d> are just examples -- place holders if you 
> like -- for whatever basis vectors are most convenient for your purposes. 
> Given the expression in terms of |u> and |d>, we can always rotate to 
> another basis by applying the formulae for the rotation of spinors that I 
> gave in my paper:
>
> |u> =  cos(theta/2)|u'> + sin(theta/2)|d'>,
> |d> = -sin(theta/2)|u'> + cos(theta/2)|d'>.
>
> Substitute these expressions in the above, and you will get the state in 
> terms of the rotated spinors:
>
>psi = (|u>|d> - |d>|u>)/sqrt(2) = (|u'>|d'> - |d'>|u'>)/sqrt(2).
>
> That is what is meant by rotational symmetry, and that is all there is to 
> it. Nothing could be simpler.
>
>
> No problem with this.
>
>
> Maybe you just need to apply this insight a little more carefully.
>
> That leads to considering that psi describes not one superposition, but 
> many superposition. That get worse with GHZ and n-particles state, and that 
> is why I have often (in this list or on the FOR list of Deutsch) explained 
> why the multiverse is a multi-multi-multi-… multi-verse. I don’t insist too 
> much because  more careful analysis would require a quantum theory of 
> space-time, and the Everett theory will certainly needs some improvement.
>
>
> |psi> does not describe just one superposition 
>
>
> Good. That is the key point.
>
>
> You jump in too quickly with your typical misunderstanding. Read the rest 
> of the sentence/paragraph before you jump to conclusions.
>
> -- by rotation the spinors we can go to any basis whatsoever. You 
> certainly do not get many superpositions, one for each possible basis. Let 
> me spell out in detail how superpositions arise in Everettian quantum 
> mechanics. You start with a state |psi>, which is just a vector in the 
> appropriate Hilbert space. The Hilbert space is spanned by a complete set 
> of orthonormal eigenvectors for each operator in that space. Again, the 
> basis is not unique, so we can perform an arbitrary rotation in the Hilbert 
> space to any other set of vectors that span the space. But this is rather 
> beside the point, because we usually choose a basis because it is useful, 
> not just because it is possible. (This relates to the preferred basis 
> problem, which I prefer not to got into at the moment.)
>
>
> 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 feelings, we might be better off. I do not introduce a 
> preferred basis. Where do you think I do that? You argue against a straw 
> man, as usual. A typical base is not a preferred base.
>

*Since you could have chosen u - d and u + d as the basis, cannot u and d 
be considered a preferred basis? AG *

>
> Given a basis, the state |psi> can be expanded in terms of these basis 
> vectors:
>
> |psi> = Sum_i c_i |a_i>,
>
> where we the basis we have chosen is the set of eigenvectors for some 
> operator A and labelled them by the corresponding eigenvalues.  This 
> expansion is the basis of the superposition, and of the formation of 
> relative states (or parallel universes, or the many worlds of Everett.) We 
> operate on the vector |psi> with the operator A, which gives
>
>A|psi> = A(Sum_i c_i|a_i>) = Sum_i c_i a_i |a_i>
>
> where |c_i|^2 is the probability that we will be in the state relative to 
> the observed eigenvalue, a_i. We could continue the operation of the 
> Schrödinger equation to include the apparatus for operator A, the observer, 
> and the rest of the environment, but you should be able to do this for 
> yourself.
>
> The point is that this is the only way in which superpositions can be 
> formed, and from those superpositions, the many worlds or relative states 
> of Everett develop by normal Schrödinger evolution. But you do not have 
> such a superposition for the different possible orientations of 
> eigenvectors for the singlet state.
>
>
> ? (That seems to contradict what you just show above).
>
>
> You deliberately

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 u’d’ 
before). To account for that, obviously maintaining locality,  we must 
 take into account the initial uncertainty, due to psi = (|u>|d> - 
|d>|u>)/sqrt(2) = (|u'>|d'> - |d'>|u'>)/sqrt(2).


But that is a classical uncertainty as to which detect angle Alice 
chooses and you have muddled the picture by leaving the detector and 
it's angle out of the equation, and writing only the particle spin part 
down.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 
can be interpreted as different superposition. When Alice choose her spin 
direction, she will chose a partition of the multiverse, which is a sort of 
multi-multiverse. Without this, not only we have FTL, but we get 
super-determinism. Alice is no more choosing anything.

But already with no-collapse multiverse  you have super determinism.

?




The only question is where different branches of possibility diverge.  Alice's 
choosing is, in the usual case, a deterministic choice, not one that produces 
or identifies her with a different branch than the one before her choice.  It 
just muddles the argument to introduce the measurement directions as different 
possibilities.

Yet, if she has a “real ability to chose”, that will determine the type of 
branch she can found herself in. If not, the singlet state cannot be 
rotationally invariant. The singlet state gives an infinity of superposition 
possibles. We forget this by assuming that ud is supposed to du, but u’d is 
superposed with d’u’ too.


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 invariant.


Brent



Bruno







Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 
all have to exist prior to the measurement.

Those different branches don't exist.  Alice's choices are not rotationally 
symmetric.  She is not existing in a superposition of possible measurement 
choices.  Her brain is, by mechanism, a classical computer.

Of course, but which superposition? People interpret ud-du by a superposition 
of ud with du, but it can be seen as superposition like u’d -d’u, et Alice can 
choose the partition of the multiverse,


Those  are just representations of the wf in different bases. Alice's 
choice of measurement axis is a classical choice.  Even if there is some 
quantum random number generator that Alice relies on for setting the 
detector angle, it is still in a classical world because the rng result 
must be amplified and decohered so that the detector can be rotated in a 
classical world branch.



which is indeed greater that any simple superposition. You need to add perhaps 
that the prediction is independent of the base, and that follows from Everett 
theory.

We just don’t share the interpretation of the universal wave. But your’s and 
Bruce remains quite unclear to me, and seem to impose some favorite base, 
which, especially in this case, cannot work, or Alice becomes overdetermined or 
superdetermined (which I doubt).


I only assert that Alice chooses a basis, a detector orientation, in 
which to measure, and that this choice is in a particular classical 
world, i.e. a branch of Everett's multiple worlds, and the same branch 
in which she will meet Bob and compare notes.


Brent



Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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:


On 15 Aug 2018, at 21:33, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 8/15/2018 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

And you have not recovered the quantitative aspect of the quantum structure,

I did at the propositional level, which is enough to have the quantum logic. It 
is richer than the quantum logic of the physicians, so this predicts new things.


What are they?


The consequence of the Löb’s formula translated in the quantum 
logical terms. Those are long and ugly formula, still beyond the 
reach of my (old) theorem prover.


So they are not testable.


?

Some are testable and tested, and some are not *yet* derived, and 
thus not tested, but they are testable of course. Not sure how you 
arrive at your conclusion.
















because you have not defined a measure on the computations of the UD.

Not yet, but I am willing to hear some constructive suggestion to progress.


Then how can you claim to have recovered quantum mechanics if you 
cannot even define a probability amplitude that is linear?



Because I have recovered enough to classify those logics as 
quantum logic.


That's a far cry from quantum mechanics.


But the UDA shows that if we don’t get quantum mechanics, it has to 
be false, or mechanism is false. The whole point is that we can test 
this.


The goal is to get a coherent picture in the computationalist frame. 
Physicalism is *already* refuted.


No.  It is only your version of physicalism that is refuted.  The 
assumption that what is physical cannot account for what is mental 
because the mental is substrate independent and therefore is 
independent of all substrate.  The last doesn't follow.



What is a substrate?


Supporting material.


How you test its primary existence?


Whether it's existence is primary or not is irrelevant.  Concrete can be 
the substrate of a building whether it is primary or has a substrate of 
atoms.


How does a substrate select a computation, given the mechanist first 
person indeterminacy ?


Concrete doesn't necessarily select the building, it supports it. In our 
particular case it seems that evolution of carbon chemistry has selected 
a computation as reproductively advantageous.


Brent

Brent



Bruno






Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re:: Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-19 Thread Bruce Kellett

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 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 Bob have prepared that state, but that state represents 
also another superposition, like |psi> = (|u'>|d'> - 
|d'>|u'>)/sqrt(2). Why would |psi> denotes a superposition of |u>|d> 
and  |d>|u> and not |u'>|d'> and  |d'>|u’>. It seems to me that you 
choose a particular base, when Everett makes clear that this would 
lead to nonsense. The physical state represent by |psi> must be the 
same whatever base is chosen.

Of course. When Have I ever said otherwise? Let me spell it out for 
you. The basis vectors |u> and |d> are just examples -- place holders 
if you like -- for whatever basis vectors are most convenient for 
your purposes. Given the expression in terms of |u> and |d>, we can 
always rotate to another basis by applying the formulae for the 
rotation of spinors that I gave in my paper:

    |u> =  cos(theta/2)|u'> + sin(theta/2)|d'>,
    |d> = -sin(theta/2)|u'> + cos(theta/2)|d'>.

Substitute these expressions in the above, and you will get the state 
in terms of the rotated spinors:

   psi = (|u>|d> - |d>|u>)/sqrt(2) = (|u'>|d'> - |d'>|u'>)/sqrt(2).

That is what is meant by rotational symmetry, and that is all there 
is to it. Nothing could be simpler.

No problem with this.

Maybe you just need to apply this insight a little more carefully.

That leads to considering that psi describes not one superposition, 
but many superposition. That get worse with GHZ and n-particles 
state, and that is why I have often (in this list or on the FOR list 
of Deutsch) explained why the multiverse is a multi-multi-multi-… 
multi-verse. I don’t insist too much because  more careful analysis 
would require a quantum theory of space-time, and the Everett theory 
will certainly needs some improvement.

|psi> does not describe just one superposition

Good. That is the key point.

You jump in too quickly with your typical misunderstanding. Read the 
rest of the sentence/paragraph before you jump to conclusions.

-- by rotation the spinors we can go to any basis whatsoever. You 
certainly do not get many superpositions, one for each possible 
basis. Let me spell out in detail how superpositions arise in 
Everettian quantum mechanics. You start with a state |psi>, which is 
just a vector in the appropriate Hilbert space. The Hilbert space is 
spanned by a complete set of orthonormal eigenvectors for each 
operator in that space. Again, the basis is not unique, so we can 
perform an arbitrary rotation in the Hilbert space to any other set 
of vectors that span the space. But this is rather beside the point, 
because we usually choose a basis because it is useful, not just 
because it is possible. (This relates to the preferred basis problem, 
which I prefer not to got into at the moment.)

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 feelings, we might be better off. I do not introduce 
a preferred basis. Where do you think I do that? You argue against a 
straw man, as usual. A typical base is not a preferred base.

Given a basis, the state |psi> can be expanded in terms of these 
basis vectors:

    |psi> = Sum_i c_i |a_i>,

where we the basis we have chosen is the set of eigenvectors for some 
operator A and labelled them by the corresponding eigenvalues.  This 
expansion is the basis of the superposition, and of the formation of 
relative states (or parallel universes, or the many worlds of 
Everett.) We operate on the vector |psi> with the operator A, which gives

   A|psi> = A(Sum_i c_i|a_i>) = Sum_i c_i a_i |a_i>

where |c_i|^2 is the probability that we will be in the state 
relative to the observed eigenvalue, a_i. We could continue the 
operation of the Schrödinger equation to include the apparatus for 
operator A, the observer, and the rest of the environment, but you 
should be able to do this for yourself.

The point is that this is the only way in which superpositions can be 
formed, and from those superpositions, the many worlds or relative 
states of Everett develop by normal Schrödinger evolution. But you do 
not have such a superposition for the different possible orientations 
of eigenvectors for the singlet state.

? (That seems to contradict what you just show above).

You deliberately misunderstand me. There is no grand superposition of 
possibles bases. Choose a base, then you can express a superposition. 
That is all there is to it. Only one superposition for the chosen 
(typical) basis.

Nor do you have an operator in some Hilbert space that

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 a unique superposition. It seems to me you can do that because Alice and 
>> Bob have prepared that state, but that state represents also another 
>> superposition, like |psi> = (|u'>|d'> - |d'>|u'>)/sqrt(2). Why would |psi> 
>> denotes a superposition of |u>|d> and  |d>|u> and not |u'>|d'> and  
>> |d'>|u’>. It seems to me that you choose a particular base, when Everett 
>> makes clear that this would lead to nonsense. The physical state represent 
>> by |psi> must be the same whatever base is chosen.
> 
> Of course. When Have I ever said otherwise? Let me spell it out for you. The 
> basis vectors |u> and |d> are just examples -- place holders if you like -- 
> for whatever basis vectors are most convenient for your purposes. Given the 
> expression in terms of |u> and |d>, we can always rotate to another basis by 
> applying the formulae for the rotation of spinors that I gave in my paper:
> 
> |u> =  cos(theta/2)|u'> + sin(theta/2)|d'>,
> |d> = -sin(theta/2)|u'> + cos(theta/2)|d'>.
> 
> Substitute these expressions in the above, and you will get the state in 
> terms of the rotated spinors:
> 
>psi = (|u>|d> - |d>|u>)/sqrt(2) = (|u'>|d'> - |d'>|u'>)/sqrt(2).
> 
> That is what is meant by rotational symmetry, and that is all there is to it. 
> Nothing could be simpler.


No problem with this.



> 
>> That leads to considering that psi describes not one superposition, but many 
>> superposition. That get worse with GHZ and n-particles state, and that is 
>> why I have often (in this list or on the FOR list of Deutsch) explained why 
>> the multiverse is a multi-multi-multi-… multi-verse. I don’t insist too much 
>> because  more careful analysis would require a quantum theory of space-time, 
>> and the Everett theory will certainly needs some improvement.
> 
> |psi> does not describe just one superposition

Good. That is the key point.



> -- by rotation the spinors we can go to any basis whatsoever. You certainly 
> do not get many superpositions, one for each possible basis. Let me spell out 
> in detail how superpositions arise in Everettian quantum mechanics. You start 
> with a state |psi>, which is just a vector in the appropriate Hilbert space. 
> The Hilbert space is spanned by a complete set of orthonormal eigenvectors 
> for each operator in that space. Again, the basis is not unique, so we can 
> perform an arbitrary rotation in the Hilbert space to any other set of 
> vectors that span the space. But this is rather beside the point, because we 
> usually choose a basis because it is useful, not just because it is possible. 
> (This relates to the preferred basis problem, which I prefer not to got into 
> at the moment.)

Yes. My feeling is that you do introduce some preferred base.




> 
> Given a basis, the state |psi> can be expanded in terms of these basis 
> vectors:
> 
> |psi> = Sum_i c_i |a_i>,
> 
> where we the basis we have chosen is the set of eigenvectors for some 
> operator A and labelled them by the corresponding eigenvalues.  This 
> expansion is the basis of the superposition, and of the formation of relative 
> states (or parallel universes, or the many worlds of Everett.) We operate on 
> the vector |psi> with the operator A, which gives
> 
>A|psi> = A(Sum_i c_i|a_i>) = Sum_i c_i a_i |a_i>
> 
> where |c_i|^2 is the probability that we will be in the state relative to the 
> observed eigenvalue, a_i. We could continue the operation of the Schrödinger 
> equation to include the apparatus for operator A, the observer, and the rest 
> of the environment, but you should be able to do this for yourself.
> 
> The point is that this is the only way in which superpositions can be formed, 
> and from those superpositions, the many worlds or relative states of Everett 
> develop by normal Schrödinger evolution. But you do not have such a 
> superposition for the different possible orientations of eigenvectors for the 
> singlet state.

? (That seems to contradict what you just show above).




> Nor do you have an operator in some Hilbert space that picks out the angle in 
> which a measurement is to be made.

That is correct, but if Alice can choose her spin direction, a choice is made 
on the way to partition the multiverse, or better the multi-multiverse. 



> 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 u’d’ before). To account for 
that, obviously maintaining locality,  we must  take into account the initial 
uncertainty, due to psi = (|u>|d> - |d>|u>)/sqrt(2) =

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-19 Thread agrayson2000



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 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 collapse in the picture. That’s 
>>> my feeling, as this is not clear. When measuring a spin: there are two 
>>> possible values *for all possible direction of the spin*. 
>>>
>>>
>>> For all possible directions of the spin *measurement*.  There is 
>>> nothing about Alice or Bob that makes all directions *possible* except 
>>> in the classical sense of "possible".
>>>
>>> That makes infinitely many worlds. 
>>>
>>>
>>> But you have elsewhere renounced the view that everything possible 
>>> happens.
>>>
>>
>> *He's affirming the error that's at the root of the MW nonsense; namely, 
>> everything that's possible to happen, must happen. AG *
>>
>>
>> With *different* relative probabilities, given by the square of the 
>> amplitude, (in QM) and by the material mode in the theology of the machine. 
>> Yes, the physical “knowledge” is always purely statistical, in both QM and 
>> Mechanism.
>>
>
> *Do you understand English? Your reply is inapposite to my comment. AG *
>
>
> “Affirming the error” is ambiguous. 
>

*I just meant that your application or interpretation of QM assumes that 
every outcome that is possible, must be realized, or measured, or observed. 
I don't see any basis (reason) for making this assumption. If you have one, 
which can be stated without appeal to arithmetic, I'd like to see it 
argued. AG *

>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>> Same for an electronic orbital. There are as many world that the 
>>> possible position of the  electron in the orbitals. Are you OK with this? I 
>>> try to figure out what is your interpretation of the SWE.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 different superposition. When Alice 
>> choose her spin direction, she will chose a partition of the multiverse, 
>> which is a sort of multi-multiverse. Without this, not only we have FTL, but 
>> we get super-determinism. Alice is no more choosing anything.
> 
> But already with no-collapse multiverse  you have super determinism. 

?



> The only question is where different branches of possibility diverge.  
> Alice's choosing is, in the usual case, a deterministic choice, not one that 
> produces or identifies her with a different branch than the one before her 
> choice.  It just muddles the argument to introduce the measurement directions 
> as different possibilities.

Yet, if she has a “real ability to chose”, that will determine the type of 
branch she can found herself in. If not, the singlet state cannot be 
rotationally invariant. The singlet state gives an infinity of superposition 
possibles. We forget this by assuming that ud is supposed to du, but u’d is 
superposed with d’u’ too.

Bruno






> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 the measurement.
> 
> Those different branches don't exist.  Alice's choices are not rotationally 
> symmetric.  She is not existing in a superposition of possible measurement 
> choices.  Her brain is, by mechanism, a classical computer.

Of course, but which superposition? People interpret ud-du by a superposition 
of ud with du, but it can be seen as superposition like u’d -d’u, et Alice can 
choose the partition of the multiverse, which is indeed greater that any simple 
superposition. You need to add perhaps that the prediction is independent of 
the base, and that follows from Everett theory.

We just don’t share the interpretation of the universal wave. But your’s and 
Bruce remains quite unclear to me, and seem to impose some favorite base, 
which, especially in this case, cannot work, or Alice becomes overdetermined or 
superdetermined (which I doubt).

Bruno

> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 Meeker  > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/15/2018 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> And you have not recovered the quantitative aspect of the quantum 
>>> structure,
>> I did at the propositional level, which is enough to have the quantum 
>> logic. It is richer than the quantum logic of the physicians, so this 
>> predicts new things. 
> 
> What are they?
 
 The consequence of the Löb’s formula translated in the quantum logical 
 terms. Those are long and ugly formula, still beyond the reach of my (old) 
 theorem prover.
>>> 
>>> So they are not testable.
>> 
>> ?
>> 
>> Some are testable and tested, and some are not *yet* derived, and thus not 
>> tested, but they are testable of course. Not sure how you arrive at your 
>> conclusion.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 
 
 
 
 
> 
>>> because you have not defined a measure on the computations of the UD.
>> Not yet, but I am willing to hear some constructive suggestion to 
>> progress. 
> 
> Then how can you claim to have recovered quantum mechanics if you cannot 
> even define a probability amplitude that is linear?
 
 
 Because I have recovered enough to classify those logics as quantum logic.
>>> 
>>> That's a far cry from quantum mechanics.
>> 
>> But the UDA shows that if we don’t get quantum mechanics, it has to be 
>> false, or mechanism is false. The whole point is that we can test this.
>> 
>> The goal is to get a coherent picture in the computationalist frame. 
>> Physicalism is *already* refuted.
> 
> No.  It is only your version of physicalism that is refuted.  The assumption 
> that what is physical cannot account for what is mental because the mental is 
> substrate independent and therefore is independent of all substrate.  The 
> last doesn't follow.


What is a substrate? How you test its primary existence? How does a substrate 
select a computation, given the mechanist first person indeterminacy ?

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 collapse in the picture. That’s my 
 feeling, as this is not clear. When measuring a spin: there are two 
 possible values *for all possible direction of the spin*.
>>> 
>>> For all possible directions of the spin measurement.  There is nothing 
>>> about Alice or Bob that makes all directions possible except in the 
>>> classical sense of "possible”.
>> 
>> That is what I said.
> 
> No it's not.  You wrote, "for all possible direction of the spin" which 
> constitutes a full circle.  But Alice's choice of direction is a classical 
> event determined by the classical computations of her brain.  It does not 
> have rotational symmetry.  But you seem to treat the problem as if she does 
> and that there is some infinity of Alice's which together have rotational 
> symmetry.

I use only the fact that ud-du = u’d-d’u. How do *you* interpret the singlet 
state?

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 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 spin: there are two 
>>> possible values *for all possible direction of the spin*.
>> 
>> For all possible directions of the spin measurement.  There is nothing about 
>> Alice or Bob that makes all directions possible except in the classical 
>> sense of "possible".
>> 
>>> That makes infinitely many worlds.
>> 
>> But you have elsewhere renounced the view that everything possible happens.
>> 
>> He's affirming the error that's at the root of the MW nonsense; namely, 
>> everything that's possible to happen, must happen. AG 
> 
> With *different* relative probabilities, given by the square of the 
> amplitude, (in QM) and by the material mode in the theology of the machine. 
> Yes, the physical “knowledge” is always purely statistical, in both QM and 
> Mechanism.
> 
> Do you understand English? Your reply is inapposite to my comment. AG 

“Affirming the error” is ambiguous. 

Bruno



> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>>> Same for an electronic orbital. There are as many world that the possible 
>>> position of the  electron in the orbitals. Are you OK with this? I try to 
>>> figure out what is your interpretation of the SWE.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re:: Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-19 Thread Bruce Kellett


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 Bob have prepared that state, but that state represents also 
another superposition, like |psi> = (|u'>|d'> - |d'>|u'>)/sqrt(2). Why 
would |psi> denotes a superposition of |u>|d> and  |d>|u> and not 
|u'>|d'> and  |d'>|u’>. It seems to me that you choose a particular 
base, when Everett makes clear that this would lead to nonsense. The 
physical state represent by |psi> must be the same whatever base is 
chosen.


Of course. When Have I ever said otherwise? Let me spell it out for you. 
The basis vectors |u> and |d> are just examples -- place holders if you 
like -- for whatever basis vectors are most convenient for your 
purposes. Given the expression in terms of |u> and |d>, we can always 
rotate to another basis by applying the formulae for the rotation of 
spinors that I gave in my paper:


    |u> =  cos(theta/2)|u'> + sin(theta/2)|d'>,
    |d> = -sin(theta/2)|u'> + cos(theta/2)|d'>.

Substitute these expressions in the above, and you will get the state in 
terms of the rotated spinors:


   psi = (|u>|d> - |d>|u>)/sqrt(2) = (|u'>|d'> - |d'>|u'>)/sqrt(2).

That is what is meant by rotational symmetry, and that is all there is 
to it. Nothing could be simpler.


That leads to considering that psi describes not one superposition, 
but many superposition. That get worse with GHZ and n-particles state, 
and that is why I have often (in this list or on the FOR list of 
Deutsch) explained why the multiverse is a multi-multi-multi-… 
multi-verse. I don’t insist too much because  more careful analysis 
would require a quantum theory of space-time, and the Everett theory 
will certainly needs some improvement.


|psi> does not describe just one superposition -- by rotation the 
spinors we can go to any basis whatsoever. You certainly do not get many 
superpositions, one for each possible basis. Let me spell out in detail 
how superpositions arise in Everettian quantum mechanics. You start with 
a state |psi>, which is just a vector in the appropriate Hilbert space. 
The Hilbert space is spanned by a complete set of orthonormal 
eigenvectors for each operator in that space. Again, the basis is not 
unique, so we can perform an arbitrary rotation in the Hilbert space to 
any other set of vectors that span the space. But this is rather beside 
the point, because we usually choose a basis because it is useful, not 
just because it is possible. (This relates to the preferred basis 
problem, which I prefer not to got into at the moment.)


Given a basis, the state |psi> can be expanded in terms of these basis 
vectors:


    |psi> = Sum_i c_i |a_i>,

where we the basis we have chosen is the set of eigenvectors for some 
operator A and labelled them by the corresponding eigenvalues. This 
expansion is the basis of the superposition, and of the formation of 
relative states (or parallel universes, or the many worlds of Everett.) 
We operate on the vector |psi> with the operator A, which gives


   A|psi> = A(Sum_i c_i|a_i>) = Sum_i c_i a_i |a_i>

where |c_i|^2 is the probability that we will be in the state relative 
to the observed eigenvalue, a_i. We could continue the operation of the 
Schrödinger equation to include the apparatus for operator A, the 
observer, and the rest of the environment, but you should be able to do 
this for yourself.


The point is that this is the only way in which superpositions can be 
formed, and from those superpositions, the many worlds or relative 
states of Everett develop by normal Schrödinger evolution. But you do 
not have such a superposition for the different possible orientations of 
eigenvectors for the singlet state. Nor do you have an operator in some 
Hilbert space that picks out the angle in which a measurement is to be 
made. So the "many superpositions" that you posit are entirely 
arbitrary, pulled out of the air without any justification. They clearly 
do not form any part of standard quantum mechanics, because the account 
of superpositions and Schrödinger evolution to many worlds that I have 
given above is the only way in which these can be formed in quantum 
mechanics.



It is also why I prefer to describe the “many-worlds” as a many 
relative states, (or even many histories), and you are right, they are 
not all reflecting simply the superpositions, but different partitions 
of the multiverse. When Alice choses a direction for measuring her 
particle’s spin, she choose the partition, and enforced “her” Bob, 
that is the Bob she can meet in the future, to belong to that 
partition, wth the corresponding spin. But she could have used another 
direction, and they both would be described (before the measurement), 
by a different (locally) superposition, despite it

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-18 Thread agrayson2000



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 prior to the measurement. 
>
> Those different branches don't exist.  Alice's choices are not 
> rotationally symmetric. 


Why not? Isn't one orientation indistinguishable from any other? AG 

> She is not existing in a superposition of 
> possible measurement choices.  Her brain is, by mechanism, a classical 
> computer. 
>
> Brent 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 chose a partition of the 
multiverse, which is a sort of multi-multiverse. Without this, not 
only we have FTL, but we get super-determinism. Alice is no more 
choosing anything.


But already with no-collapse multiverse  you have super determinism.  
The only question is where different branches of possibility diverge.  
Alice's choosing is, in the usual case, a deterministic choice, not one 
that produces or identifies her with a different branch than the one 
before her choice.  It just muddles the argument to introduce the 
measurement directions as different possibilities.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 choices are not 
rotationally symmetric.  She is not existing in a superposition of 
possible measurement choices.  Her brain is, by mechanism, a classical 
computer.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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:

And you have not recovered the quantitative aspect of the quantum structure,

I did at the propositional level, which is enough to have the quantum logic. It 
is richer than the quantum logic of the physicians, so this predicts new things.


What are they?


The consequence of the Löb’s formula translated in the quantum 
logical terms. Those are long and ugly formula, still beyond the 
reach of my (old) theorem prover.


So they are not testable.


?

Some are testable and tested, and some are not *yet* derived, and thus 
not tested, but they are testable of course. Not sure how you arrive 
at your conclusion.
















because you have not defined a measure on the computations of the UD.

Not yet, but I am willing to hear some constructive suggestion to progress.


Then how can you claim to have recovered quantum mechanics if you 
cannot even define a probability amplitude that is linear?



Because I have recovered enough to classify those logics as quantum 
logic.


That's a far cry from quantum mechanics.


But the UDA shows that if we don’t get quantum mechanics, it has to be 
false, or mechanism is false. The whole point is that we can test this.


The goal is to get a coherent picture in the computationalist frame. 
Physicalism is *already* refuted.


No.  It is only your version of physicalism that is refuted.  The 
assumption that what is physical cannot account for what is mental 
because the mental is substrate independent and therefore is independent 
of all substrate.  The last doesn't follow.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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 2:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

  kicking back of the fact that we have to take account the wave structure 
integrally.

If you read words metaphorically then you can make them mean anything.

The whole point is that the quantum wave is not a metaphor. That is what the 
two slit experience, done with one particle at a time, illustrates.
Moving to instrumentalism is an option in applied physics. It is non sensical 
in metaphysics.

On the contrary, it is a metaphysic.

As a metaphysics it is self-defeating as it leads to solipsism. Metaphysical 
instrumentalism denies any non-observable reality, not even the dark side of 
the moon.

No.  That's strawmanning.  "Observable" allows for indirect observation.  
Observation is not the same as seeing.

Indirect observation needs extrapolation. You just interpret this in Aristotle 
metaphysics which attribute a *fundamental* reality on what we see and that we 
infer from that. But that is contradicted by the facts and the mechanist theory 
of mind. You are invoking your God without saying, ITSME.


You attribute a fundamental reality to what you think.  Perception is a 
form of thinking.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?