Time: 2012-12-24, 15:32:08
Subject: Re: Against Mechanism
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 2:17 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/24/2012 8:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Jason Resch
Since 1p has the property
content -
From: Jason Resch
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-25, 09:37:35
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Against Mechanism
Well if two people have the same mind and identity, then might they share the
same soul (at least for a moment)?
Jason
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Roger Clough
Hi Jason,
I should have that if those two people can shake hands,
they cannot be identical.
- Have received the following content -
Sender: Roger Clough
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-26, 08:27:06
Subject: Re: Re: Against Mechanism
Hi Jason Resch
There is and cannot
-
From: Jason Resch
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-24, 15:32:08
Subject: Re: Against Mechanism
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 2:17 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/24/2012 8:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Roger Clough
rclo...@verizon.net
-
*From:* Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
*Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2012-12-24, 11:13:17
*Subject:* Re: Re: Against Mechanism
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote:
Hi Jason Resch
Since 1p has the property
is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Jason Resch
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-24, 11:13:17
Subject: Re: Re: Against Mechanism
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Jason
, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Jason Resch
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-22, 14:56:13
Subject: Re: Against Mechanism
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-22, 14:56:13
Subject: Re: Against Mechanism
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote:
In a world with duplicating chambers there is no such thing as the
future 1p view.
Of course
On 12/24/2012 8:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Jason Resch
Since 1p has the property of perspective,
and no two people can be at the same place at the
same time,
But could
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 2:17 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/24/2012 8:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote:
Hi Jason Resch
Since 1p has the property of perspective,
and no two people can be at the same place
On 22 Dec 2012, at 22:01, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/22/2012 11:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Deutsch et al. have solved the probability problem.
I don't think so. If you are referring to his decision analysis, it
only seems to work for simple binary choices - QM predicts
probabilities that
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
as I said, there is no such thing as the future 1p view, there is
only a future 1p view.
But you have been duplicated.
Yes.
from your future person points of view
In a world of duplicating machines there is no
On 20 Dec 2012, at 22:18, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
You are asking about the present first person point of view of
someone,
NO. read the question: it is about a future first personal event.
That is totally false! The
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
In a world with duplicating chambers there is no such thing as the
future 1p view.
Of course there is. There are two such future 1-view.
Then as I said, there is no such thing as the future 1p view, there is
only a future 1p
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
In a world with duplicating chambers there is no such thing as the
future 1p view.
Of course there is. There are two such future 1-view.
Then as I said,
I meant to write:
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Your error is that you are generalizing this rule beyond its domain and
you wrongly conclude it means there can never be any *difference in
the*experimental outcome regardless of whether it is
On 12/22/2012 11:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Deutsch et al. have solved the probability problem.
I don't think so. If you are referring to his decision analysis, it only seems to work
for simple binary choices - QM predicts probabilities that are often irrational numbers.
Gleason's theorem
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You are asking about the present first person point of view of someone,
NO. read the question: it is about a future first personal event.
That is totally false! The Helsinki man is informing you about his PRESENT
On 16 Dec 2012, at 19:53, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
it's true that after the duplication there will be 2 first
person Bruno Marchal points of view, but the problem is that before
the duplication there is only one first
On 15 Dec 2012, at 04:25, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/14/2012 6:07 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/14/2012 2:19 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/14/2012 4:50 PM, meekerdb wrote:
Brent Meeker appreciates John Clark's concern with pronouns. I
think it needs to put in the context of QM, which
On 14 Dec 2012, at 21:54, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
In the 3p-view. But with the Computationalist Theory of Mind (CTM,
alias comp), there are two first person points of view
Yes, Bruno Marchal has said that many times
On 15 Dec 2012, at 00:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/14/2012 2:19 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/14/2012 4:50 PM, meekerdb wrote:
Brent Meeker appreciates John Clark's concern with pronouns. I
think it needs to put in the context of QM, which is what Bruno is
proposing to explain.
On 15 Dec 2012, at 00:09, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/14/2012 2:19 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent,
I stopped a long time ago to read the 'transported' versions for
one reason:
if it is REALLY (only) a transport, it does not make a difference
whether you will CONTINUE in Moscow or in Helsinki, it
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
it's true that after the duplication there will be 2 first person
Bruno Marchal points of view, but the problem is that before the
duplication there is only one first person point of view at it is here the
question is
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:25 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, and there are two of them and so there are 2 heres and 2 not
theres. So what ONE and only ONE thing does John Clark the
experimenter enter
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:50 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Brent Meeker appreciates John Clark's concern with pronouns.
John Clark is happy to read that but is somewhat skeptical it is true.
I think it needs to put in the context of QM, which is what Bruno is
proposing to
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Subjective probability depends on the amount of information, or lack of
it, the person involved has; and if Many Worlds is correct then all
probabilities are subjective. If you told me nothing about the machine and
just
2012/12/15 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Subjective probability depends on the amount of information, or lack of
it, the person involved has; and if Many Worlds is correct then all
probabilities are subjective. If
On 12/15/2012 9:50 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:50 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Brent Meeker appreciates John Clark's concern with pronouns.
John Clark is happy to read that but is somewhat skeptical it is true.
I think it
On 13 Dec 2012, at 22:25, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Yes, and there are two of them and so there are 2 heres and 2 not
theres. So what ONE and only ONE thing does John Clark the
experimenter enter into the lab notebook??
So if there is a brain conjoined twin (Adam Ben) in Albuquerque and they
are duplicated once in Buffalo and once in Cleveland, but in Cleveland
something goes wrong and Adam does not get duplicated.
What are you both saying happens to Adam Ben in Albuquerque and to Ben in
Cleveland?
Craig
On 12/14/2012 12:54 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
In the 3p-view. But with the Computationalist Theory of Mind (CTM, alias
comp),
there are two first person points of view
Yes, Bruno
If this were done in real life, my guess is that Bruno_w dies in the
transporter (sorry Bruno), and a disoriented amnesiac identical twin is
born at every transporter location. I don't know if these clones would even
survive, I think they would be brain dead and lacking a heartbeat but maybe
On 12/14/2012 4:50 PM, meekerdb wrote:
Brent Meeker appreciates John Clark's concern with pronouns. I think
it needs to put in the context of QM, which is what Bruno is proposing
to explain. Suppose Bruno is Helsinki and he steps in a transporter
and it sends him to Washington. That Bruno,
Brent,
I stopped a long time ago to read the 'transported' versions for one
reason:
if it is REALLY (only) a transport, it does not make a difference whether
you will CONTINUE in Moscow or in Helsinki, it is 'your' undisrupted self.
However, if it goes into a multiple existence then - my problem
On 12/14/2012 2:19 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent,
I stopped a long time ago to read the 'transported' versions for one reason:
if it is REALLY (only) a transport, it does not make a difference whether you will
CONTINUE in Moscow or in Helsinki, it is 'your' undisrupted self. However, if it goes
On 12/14/2012 6:07 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/14/2012 2:19 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/14/2012 4:50 PM, meekerdb wrote:
Brent Meeker appreciates John Clark's concern with pronouns. I think
it needs to put in the context of QM, which is what Bruno is
proposing to explain. Suppose Bruno
On 12/14/2012 6:09 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/14/2012 2:19 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent,
I stopped a long time ago to read the 'transported' versions for one
reason:
if it is REALLY (only) a transport, it does not make a difference
whether you will CONTINUE in Moscow or in Helsinki, it is
On 12 Dec 2012, at 20:00, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:49:16 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 12 Dec 2012, at 14:19, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:03:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 11 Dec 2012, at 19:17, Craig Weinberg
Craig,
If in your theory sense is fundamental, a hence explains everything,
how could your theory explain concepts like:
Gravity
Quantum mechanics
Fine tuning
It seems you need some formal laws and definitions concerning sense in
order to build from it as a basis of understanding.
What
On 13 Dec 2012, at 04:39, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/12/2012 4:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:15 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/12/2012 9:25 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/11/2012 9:31 AM, Jason
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Copenhagen said the choice is made by the experimenter and apparently
Deutsch agrees with this because he thinks it's significant that his AI is
conscious
No Deutsch does not agree with this, I know because I've talked to him
about
On 12/13/2012 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Dec 2012, at 04:39, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/12/2012 4:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:15 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/12/2012 9:25 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Dec
On 12/13/2012 10:46 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Copenhagen said the choice is made by the experimenter and apparently
Deutsch
agrees with this because he thinks it's significant that his AI is conscious
2012/12/13 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 12/13/2012 10:46 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Copenhagen said the choice is made by the experimenter and apparently
Deutsch agrees with this because he thinks it's significant that his AI is
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, and there are two of them and so there are 2 heres and 2 not
theres. So what ONE and only ONE thing does John Clark the
experimenterenter into the lab notebook??
You are hopeless. I've answered this at least
On 12/13/2012 3:36 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/13/2012 11:46 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/12/13 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 12/13/2012 10:46 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 11 Dec 2012, at 19:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 1:07:16 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Your servitor:
1) Arithmetic (comp)
:)
Bruno
To which I add:
0) That which perceives, understands, participates, and gives rise
to comp.
OK. But this is just to
On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:03:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Dec 2012, at 19:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 1:07:16 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Your servitor:
1) Arithmetic (comp)
:)
Bruno
To which I add:
On 12 Dec 2012, at 14:19, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:03:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Dec 2012, at 19:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 1:07:16 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Your servitor:
1) Arithmetic (comp)
:)
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/11/2012 9:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Everett's QM is not a theory; it's just an interpretations.
Not quite. Deutsch's proposed experiment with reversible computation
and an AI yields different results for the CI and MWI,
On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:49:16 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Dec 2012, at 14:19, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:03:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Dec 2012, at 19:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, December
On 12/12/2012 9:25 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/11/2012 9:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Everett's QM is not a theory; it's just an interpretations.
Not quite. Deutsch's proposed experiment
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:15 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/12/2012 9:25 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/11/2012 9:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Everett's QM is not a theory; it's just an interpretations.
Not
On 12/12/2012 7:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If observing a definite result doesn't collapse the wave function then
what does? I think the experiment is meant to show collapse does not
happen. And if there is no collapse then you have the MWI.
Jason
Hi,
It seems to me that we would not
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 12/12/2012 7:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If observing a definite result doesn't collapse the wave function then
what does? I think the experiment is meant to show collapse does not
happen. And if there is no
On 12/12/2012 4:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:15 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/12/2012 9:25 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/12/2012 5:10 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 12/12/2012 7:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If observing a definite result doesn't collapse the wave function then
what
On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM,
On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But why isn't It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born
rule. a good explanation. I'm all for finding a better
explanation, i.e. a deterministic one. But simply postulating an
ensemble of
On 10 Dec 2012, at 19:54, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
From whose perspective is there a single unique result?
From my perspective! Whenever I, the simple non-godlike
experimenter, send a photon (or electron) through 2 slits
On 12/11/2012 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On
On 12/11/2012 7:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But why isn't It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born rule. a good
explanation. I'm all for finding a better explanation, i.e. a deterministic one.
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:05 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/11/2012 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM,
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:09 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/11/2012 7:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But why isn't It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born rule. a
good
On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 12:23:08 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:05 AM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.netjavascript:
wrote:
On 12/11/2012 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Dec 2012, at 18:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/11/2012 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:48 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/10/2012 10:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/10/2012 10:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM, meekerdb
On 11 Dec 2012, at 18:09, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/11/2012 7:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But why isn't It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born
rule. a good explanation. I'm all for finding a
On 12/11/2012 9:23 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:05 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/11/2012 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 1:07:16 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Your servitor:
1) Arithmetic (comp)
:)
Bruno
To which I add:
0) That which perceives, understands, participates, and gives rise to comp.
:)
Craig
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On 12/11/2012 9:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
in simpler theories, like the CTM or Everett QM.
Everett's QM is not a theory; it's just an interpretations.
Not quite. Deutsch's proposed experiment with reversible computation and an AI yields
different results for the CI and MWI, thus
On 12/11/2012 9:53 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:48 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/10/2012 10:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
Also, we do not experience a reality. We experience something
(consciousness, mainly) and we extrapolate reality from that, and from
theories already extrapolated.
Bruno has it down!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 1:40:58 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
Also, we do not experience a reality. We experience something
(consciousness, mainly) and we extrapolate reality from that, and from
theories already extrapolated.
Bruno has it down!
Agreed, but
On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
And without a
On 10 Dec 2012, at 07:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/9/2012 5:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/9/2012 12:08
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:32 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/9/2012 5:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb
On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But why isn't It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born rule. a good
explanation. I'm all for finding a better explanation, i.e. a deterministic one. But
simply postulating an ensemble of worlds to make the probabilities deterministic in
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:25 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun,
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But why isn't It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born rule. a
good explanation. I'm all for finding a better explanation, i.e. a
deterministic one. But simply
On 12/10/2012 5:41 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:32 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/9/2012 5:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 12/10/2012 10:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But why isn't It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the Born rule. a
good
explanation.
On Dec 10, 2012, at 12:54 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
From whose perspective is there a single unique result?
From my perspective! Whenever I, the simple non-godlike
experimenter, send a photon (or
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/10/2012 10:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/10/2012 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But why isn't It's a probabilistic world and it obeys the
On 12/10/2012 10:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 1:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/10/2012 10:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 09 Dec 2012, at 02:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/8/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
People change over time and the meaning of the pronoun associated
with that changing person will change over time too, and the
meaning of the pronoun will change even more suddenly if a
duplicating
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 12:37 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
If I understand your point correctly the deciding factor of an
experiment's value is whether there is a result obtained not known before
the
On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
And without a doubt the most popular interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
among
working physicists is SUAC (Shut Up And Calculate),
That's not an interpretation at all.
Well for a more philosophical statement of it see Omnes. His view is
On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
This reminded me a bit of The Presumptuous Philosopher thought experiment:
It is the year 2100 and physicists have narrowed down the search for a theory of
everything to only two remaining plausible candidate theories, T1 and T2 (using
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
And without a doubt the most popular interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
among working physicists is SUAC (Shut Up And Calculate),
That's not an interpretation at all.
Well
On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
And without a doubt the most popular interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics among
working
On 12/9/2012 5:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 07 Dec 2012, at 18:33, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Doing the experience yourself
Which one is yourself after duplication?
One of them with P = 1/2.
That neatly sums up the entire problem,
Indeed.
the insistence that there is only
On 12/8/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
People change over time and the meaning of the pronoun associated with that changing
person will change over time too, and the meaning of the pronoun will change even more
suddenly if a duplicating chamber is used.
But both remember the protocol, and
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Doing the experience yourself
Which one is yourself after duplication?
One of them with P = 1/2.
That neatly sums up the entire problem, the insistence that there is only
one correct answer to the question what city will you
On 05 Dec 2012, at 16:32, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
a observer who did not want to play games and honestly wanted to
convey the maximum amount of information would NOT say from a first
person view I saw W or M. And I meant
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
a observer who did not want to play games and honestly wanted to convey
the maximum amount of information would NOT say from a first person view I
saw W or M. And I meant that me would say I saw M AND me would say
I saw W.
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 1:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment
If the experimenters know which slit it goes through, the photon will
behave as a
1 - 100 of 313 matches
Mail list logo