On Saturday, February 22, 2020 at 12:42:40 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 2/21/2020 11:21 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 9:44:07 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2/21/2020 8:19 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 8:28:32 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/21/2020 7:02 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 12:42:20 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/21/2020 5:40 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 3:48:56 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 21 Feb 2020, at 09:47, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 12:46:57 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 2:59:05 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think Bruce's position is that quantum processes are inherently >>>>>>> random and thus NOT computable. Doesn't this conclusion, if true, >>>>>>> totally >>>>>>> disconfirm Bruno's theory that the apparent physical universe comes >>>>>>> into >>>>>>> being by computations of arithmetic pre-existing principles or >>>>>>> postulates? >>>>>>> AG >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> William James thought belief in *determinism* is a form of *religious >>>>>> bondage*. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/james/ >>>>>> >>>>>> @philipthrift >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But true randomness, as the opposite of determinism, could be equated >>>>> with UN-intelligibility. AG >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To postulate it is irrational. OK. But once the randomness admits a >>>>> simple explanation, like with the self-duplicating procedure, it becomes >>>>> intelligible. Everett saves physics from being un-intelligible, and >>>>> indeed, >>>>> leads to the explanation by arithmetic and its internal meta-arithmetic >>>>> (à >>>>> la Gödel). >>>>> >>>>> Bruno >>>>> >>>> >>>> But, as I just pointed out in my previous message, the price paid is >>>> way too high to avoid randomness; that is, self-duplication is too silly >>>> to >>>> be believable. I prefer a possible middle ground; that the universe isn't >>>> really stochastic (an inference from QM), but pseudo random. AG >>>> >>>> >>>> You should read Ruth Kastner's book on "The Transactional >>>> Interpretation". >>>> >>>> Brent >>>> >>> >>> Thanks, but I am not an enthusiast of the TI, since it requires >>> pro-active processes for each particles going backward in time. >>> >>> >>> Kastner modifies that by hypothesizing a "possibility space" in which >>> the "hand-shake" takes place. But it still involves a "confirmation wave" >>> which extends back in time from the absorber (and forward in time from the >>> emitter). >>> >>> I've asked this before, but haven't gotten a reply, or at least one I >>> can recall. What's wrong with just assuming that in a superposition of >>> states, the amplitudes give us the probability of each state in the sum, >>> and NOT that the system is in all states simultaneously? >>> >>> >>> Think of applying that to a silver atom in an SG experiment. It is in >>> an UP spin state (with probability 1.0) but it's also in LEFT spin state >>> with probability 0.5 and a RIGHT spin state with probability 0.5. So it's >>> total probability is 2.0. >>> >> >> *I was taught that the sum of probabilities in any basis must be 1.0. I >> never heard of adding up probabilities in more than one basis. AG * >> >> That's the point. P=2.0 makes no sense. Yet those two states are >> mathematically the same in QM. How are you going to get P(UP)=1.0 by >> summing over states of LEFT and RIGHT? >> > > *If you sum over either representation, you get 1.0. I don't see any > problem. AG* > > If you say the state is |LEFT>+|RIGHT> and "the amplitudes give us the > probability of each state in the sum" what is the probability of |UP>? >
*If the probability of UP is 1.0, I assume the system has been measured and is in the UP state; or possibly UP is pointed along the x-axis with no other component. How is this different from having a unit vector along the x-axis, and the same vector represented by a linear combination of two other vectors, say pointing in the same general direction, but rotated up and down from the x-axis? AG* > > 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/29cb7cd9-4c8d-4ffa-b9bb-9dc8bfd13dfa%40googlegroups.com.
