Re: Max and FPI

On Friday, April 11, 2014 8:34:10 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Friday, April 11, 2014 7:31:20 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> On Friday, April 11, 2014 7:14:39 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >>> >>> This hasn't clarified matters, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe you could >>> go ba

Re: Max and FPI

On Friday, April 11, 2014 7:31:20 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Friday, April 11, 2014 7:14:39 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >> >> This hasn't clarified matters, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe you could >> go back to my original comment, that wave function collapse isn't an >> observed fac

Re: Max and FPI

On Friday, April 11, 2014 7:14:39 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: > > This hasn't clarified matters, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe you could go > back to my original comment, that wave function collapse isn't an observed > fact, and tell me if you agree with that, then once we've settled that we > can

Re: Max and FPI

This hasn't clarified matters, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe you could go back to my original comment, that wave function collapse isn't an observed fact, and tell me if you agree with that, then once we've settled that we can move on to the next point (whatever that is), and so on? On 11 April

Re: Max and FPI

On Thursday, April 3, 2014 7:56:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: > > On 3 April 2014 16:56, > wrote: > >> >> On Thursday, April 3, 2014 3:07:26 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >> >>> On 3 April 2014 14:39, wrote: >>> On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: > > gbhibbsa, I'm g

Re: Max and FPI

On Friday, April 11, 2014 5:47:43 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Thursday, April 3, 2014 7:56:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >> >> On 3 April 2014 16:56, wrote: >> >>> >>> On Thursday, April 3, 2014 3:07:26 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >>> On 3 April 2014 14:39, wrote: > > On

Re: Max and FPI

On Thursday, April 3, 2014 7:56:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: > > On 3 April 2014 16:56, > wrote: > >> >> On Thursday, April 3, 2014 3:07:26 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >> >>> On 3 April 2014 14:39, wrote: >>> On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: > > gbhibbsa, I'm g

Re: Max and FPI

On 03 Apr 2014, at 08:56, LizR wrote: As I understand it, the "QM interpretation movement" stalled for about 30 years before the MWI came along. My view on this has changed. I tend to think that the Newton/Huygens debate, which was a debate about the nature of light (particle, for Newton

Re: Max and FPI

On 03 Apr 2014, at 08:49, meekerdb wrote: On 4/2/2014 6:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The original proof of Gleason is not easy, but a more elementary proof (which remains not that simple) has been found by Cooke, Keane and Moran, and can be found in the (very good) book by Richard Hugues (

Re: Max and FPI

On 03 Apr 2014, at 05:12, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote: The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? I found Tegm

Re: Max and FPI

On 03 Apr 2014, at 01:16, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 3:40:18 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 Mar 2014, at 20:14, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/31/2014 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> On 31 Mar 2014, at 19:04, meekerdb wrote: >> >>> On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marc

Re: Max and FPI

On 02 Apr 2014, at 23:20, LizR wrote: On 3 April 2014 04:37, Bruno Marchal wrote: Suppose R is not transitive, so for all beta (alpha R beta) and there are some gamma such that [(beta R gamma) and ~(alpha R gamma)]. I cannot parse that sentence, I guess some word are missing. R is not t

Re: Max and FPI

On 02 Apr 2014, at 23:15, LizR wrote: As instructed I will have a look at Brent's proofs and see if I follow them, and agree... On 2 April 2014 15:45, meekerdb wrote: On 4/1/2014 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: BTW, are you OK in the math thread? Are you OK, like Liz apparently, that the K

Re: Max and FPI

On 3 April 2014 16:56, wrote: > > On Thursday, April 3, 2014 3:07:26 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: > >> On 3 April 2014 14:39, wrote: >> >>> >>> On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that wavefunction collapse i

Re: Max and FPI

On 4/2/2014 6:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The original proof of Gleason is not easy, but a more elementary proof (which remains not that simple) has been found by Cooke, Keane and Moran, and can be found in the (very good) book by Richard Hugues (you can find a PDF on the net). Only if you loo

Re: Max and FPI

On Thursday, April 3, 2014 3:07:26 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: > > On 3 April 2014 14:39, > wrote: > >> >> On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >>> >>> gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that >>> wavefunction collapse isn't an observed fact, which seems to me

Re: Max and FPI

On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote: >> >> The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? >> >> I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointi

Re: Max and FPI

On 3 April 2014 14:39, wrote: > > On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >> >> gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that >> wavefunction collapse isn't an observed fact, which seems to me a fairly >> reasonable statement, because we can't observe entities li

Re: Max and FPI

On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: > > gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that wavefunction > collapse isn't an observed fact, which seems to me a fairly reasonable > statement, because we can't observe entities like wavefunctions directly, > and we

Re: Max and FPI

gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that wavefunction collapse isn't an observed fact, which seems to me a fairly reasonable statement, because we can't observe entities like wavefunctions directly, and we certainly can't observe their collapse directly. Some people would say w

Re: Max and FPI

On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:40:21 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:35:39 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:03:51 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >>> >>> On 3 April 2014 11:46, wrote: >>> On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:

Re: Max and FPI

On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:35:39 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:03:51 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >> >> On 3 April 2014 11:46, wrote: >> >>> >>> On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:10:18 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >>> On 3 April 2014 10:55, wrote: >

Re: Max and FPI

On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:03:51 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: > > On 3 April 2014 11:46, > wrote: > >> >> On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:10:18 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >> >>> On 3 April 2014 10:55, wrote: >>> On Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: > > I'm not sure c

Re: Max and FPI

On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 3:40:18 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 31 Mar 2014, at 20:14, meekerdb wrote: > > > On 3/31/2014 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> > >> On 31 Mar 2014, at 19:04, meekerdb wrote: > >> > >>> On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > OK...y

Re: Max and FPI

On 3 April 2014 11:46, wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:10:18 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: > >> On 3 April 2014 10:55, wrote: >> >>> >>> On Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption which explains

Re: Max and FPI

On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:10:18 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: > > On 3 April 2014 10:55, > wrote: > >> >> On Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >>> >>> I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption >>> which explains how we come to measure discrete values.

Re: Max and FPI

On 3 April 2014 10:55, wrote: > > On Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >> >> I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption >> which explains how we come to measure discrete values. >> > > Would mind helping me place your meaning in terms of mine Liz? > ,

Re: Max and FPI

On Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: > > I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption which > explains how we come to measure discrete values. > Would mind helping me place your meaning in terms of mine Liz? , Say, if we imagine a process of strippi

Re: Max and FPI

On 3 April 2014 04:37, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Suppose R is not transitive, so for all beta (alpha R beta) and there are > some gamma such that [(beta R gamma) and ~(alpha R gamma)]. > > > I cannot parse that sentence, I guess some word are missing. R is not > transitive means that there exist a

Re: Max and FPI

As instructed I will have a look at Brent's proofs and see if I follow them, and agree... On 2 April 2014 15:45, meekerdb wrote: > On 4/1/2014 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> BTW, are you OK in the math thread? Are you OK, like Liz apparently, that >> the Kripke frame (W,R) respects A -> []<

Re: Max and FPI

On 02 Apr 2014, at 04:45, meekerdb wrote: On 4/1/2014 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: BTW, are you OK in the math thread? Are you OK, like Liz apparently, that the Kripke frame (W,R) respects A -> []<>A iff R is symmetrical? Should I give the proof of the fact that the Kripke frame (W,R)

Re: Max and FPI

On 02 Apr 2014, at 03:43, meekerdb wrote: On 4/1/2014 2:25 PM, LizR wrote: I just read the definition of Gleason's theorem on Wikipedia and now my brain is full. A "for-dummies" version would be appreciated... I think what Gleason proved is that the only consistent probability measure on

Re: Max and FPI

Hi Richard, On 01 Apr 2014, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno, I have a problem with the Gleason Theorem because it appears to me to be saying that every possible quantum state is realized with equal probability at first, but the frequency at which each universe reoccurs is given by t

Re: Max and FPI

On 4/1/2014 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: BTW, are you OK in the math thread? Are you OK, like Liz apparently, that the Kripke frame (W,R) respects A -> []<>A iff R is symmetrical? Should I give the proof of the fact that the Kripke frame (W,R) respects []A -> [][]A iff R is a transitive? Br

Re: Max and FPI

Apparently my conception of Gleason's Theorem is incorrect. However, I was struck by something the author of the answer, Mitchell Porter, said that is exactly what I thought the Gleason Theorem was about: "In my opinion, the sensible interpretation of a nonuniform measure in a multiverse theory (in

Re: Max and FPI

Eek! Am I a mystical many-worlder (on days that don't have a "T" in them) ? Thank you that was very interesting, although I still don't know what to make of quantum theory (that's good, right?) By the way I've seen "Kirk on a rock" before somewhere, maybe it was in a parallel universe... On 2

Re: Max and FPI

On 4/1/2014 2:25 PM, LizR wrote: I just read the definition of Gleason's theorem on Wikipedia and now my brain is full. A "for-dummies" version would be appreciated... I think what Gleason proved is that the only consistent probability measure on a Hilbert space is given by the normalized inne

Re: Max and FPI

I just read the definition of Gleason's theorem on Wikipedia and now my brain is full. A "for-dummies" version would be appreciated... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails fr

Re: Max and FPI

Bruno, I have a problem with the Gleason Theorem because it appears to me to be saying that every possible quantum state is realized with equal probability at first, but the frequency at which each universe reoccurs is given by the FPI probabilities that are measured in controlled quantum experimen

Re: Max and FPI

On 01 Apr 2014, at 03:33, meekerdb wrote: On 3/31/2014 6:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 1 April 2014 06:04, meekerdb wrote: The price is not having a unified 'self' - which many people would consider a big price since all observation and record keeping which is used to empirically test theories as

Re: Max and FPI

On 31 Mar 2014, at 20:14, meekerdb wrote: On 3/31/2014 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 Mar 2014, at 19:04, meekerdb wrote: On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically observed fact actually not be. But would even that alo

Re: Max and FPI

On 1 April 2014 14:33, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/31/2014 6:00 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 1 April 2014 06:04, meekerdb wrote: > >> The price is not having a unified 'self' - which many people would >> consider a big price since all observation and record keeping which is used >> to empirically test th

Re: Max and FPI

On 1 April 2014 13:56, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/31/2014 6:41 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > Are you saying that the fact that we don't see many worlds is >> evidence against many worlds? >> >> >> No, the fact that whatever our instrument reads our *theory* says there >> are infinitely ma

Re: Max and FPI

On 3/31/2014 6:41 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Are you saying that the fact that we don't see many worlds is evidence against many worlds? No, the fact that whatever our instrument reads our *theory* says there are infinitely many other readings. Is that just a psychologi

Re: Max and FPI

On 1 April 2014 12:24, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/31/2014 5:53 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > On 1 April 2014 04:04, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >>OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically observed >>> fact actually not be.

Re: Max and FPI

On 3/31/2014 6:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 1 April 2014 06:04, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: The price is not having a unified 'self' - which many people would consider a big price since all observation and record keeping which is used to empirically test theories assumes

Re: Max and FPI

On 3/31/2014 5:53 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 1 April 2014 04:04, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically observed fact actually not be. But would

Re: Max and FPI

On 1 April 2014 06:04, meekerdb wrote: > The price is not having a unified 'self' - which many people would > consider a big price since all observation and record keeping which is used > to empirically test theories assumes this unity. If you observe X and you > want to use that as empircal tes

Re: Max and FPI

On 1 April 2014 04:04, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically observed >> fact actually not be. >> >> But would even that alone have been remotely near the ballpark of things >> taken seriously, had there

Re: Max and FPI

So for meaningful dsicussion it looks like we need either a good explanation of the Born rule within the MWI (which I imagined had been provided by decoherence, but apparently this ain't necessarily so?) or a disproof of the MWI. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Goog

Re: Max and FPI

On 3/31/2014 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 Mar 2014, at 19:04, meekerdb wrote: On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically observed fact actually not be. But would even that alone have been remotely near the ball

Re: Max and FPI

On 31 Mar 2014, at 19:04, meekerdb wrote: On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically observed fact actually not be. But would even that alone have been remotely near the ballpark of things taken seriously, had there not been ex

Re: Max and FPI

On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically observed fact actually not be. But would even that alone have been remotely near the ballpark of things taken seriously, had there not been extreme quantum strangeness irrec

Re: Max and FPI

Richard, On 31 Mar 2014, at 11:33, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno, Is not collapse restored for controlled experiments which are all first-person? Yes, collapse is restored in the minds of each observer, but it is, as you say, a first person perspective, sharable as duplication is contagio

Re: Max and FPI

On 31 Mar 2014, at 12:44, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, March 31, 2014 8:30:35 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 Mar 2014, at 07:41, LizR wrote: I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption which explains how we come to measure discrete values. On 31 Mar

Re: Max and FPI

On Monday, March 31, 2014 8:30:35 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 31 Mar 2014, at 07:41, LizR wrote: > > I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption which > explains how we come to measure discrete values. > > > On 31 March 2014 16:27, > wrote: > >> >> On Tuesday,

Re: Max and FPI

Bruno, Is not collapse restored for controlled experiments which are all first-person? I know of no 3p experiments. Richard On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 5:22 AM, LizR wrote: > Probably my fault because I was in a hurry & didn't reply under what I was > answering, as I try to do normally. > > On 31 M

Re: Max and FPI

Probably my fault because I was in a hurry & didn't reply under what I was answering, as I try to do normally. On 31 March 2014 21:06, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Ghibbsa, > > I answered to this in my reply to Liz. Usually I try to avoid this, but I > confused the post. Sorry to Liz too. > > Best, >

Re: Max and FPI

Ghibbsa, I answered to this in my reply to Liz. Usually I try to avoid this, but I confused the post. Sorry to Liz too. Best, Bruno On 31 Mar 2014, at 05:27, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghi...@gmail

Re: Max and FPI

On 31 Mar 2014, at 07:41, LizR wrote: I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption which explains how we come to measure discrete values. On 31 March 2014 16:27, wrote: On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghi..

Re: Max and FPI

I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption which explains how we come to measure discrete values. On 31 March 2014 16:27, wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> On Mo

Re: Max and FPI

On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote: >> >> The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? >> >> I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointi

Re: Max and FPI

On 27 Mar 2014, at 17:50, meekerdb wrote: On 3/26/2014 11:38 PM, LizR wrote: OK, I suppose the argument makes sense, sort of (although it seems more likely to me that genes would act as though there is one universe whether that's the case or not, for reasons I already mentioned). Anyway l

Re: Max and FPI

On 27 Mar 2014, at 21:49, Richard Ruquist wrote: Brent, If as you say "in the multiverse everything happens and infinitely many times" then there can be only one multiverse, I think I agree, Richard, but you should perhaps added precisions: like saying everything *consistent* (in some

Re: Max and FPI

Different potentials. Infinite multiverse has a flat potential. Linde's Chaotic Inflation Cosmology has a parabolic potential in each separate universe. Such a potential fits the BICEP2 data best On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 7:15 PM, LizR wrote: > On 28 March 2014 09:49, Richard Ruquist wrote: > >>

Re: Max and FPI

On 28 March 2014 09:49, Richard Ruquist wrote: > Brent, > If as you say "in the multiverse everything happens and infinitely many > times" > then there can be only one multiverse, which negates a number of cosmology > theories like Linde's Chaotic Inflation Cosmology. > It does? How? -- You re

Re: Max and FPI

On 28 March 2014 06:02, meekerdb wrote: > > I agree. I just thought it was an interesting idea that 'natural > selection' might act differently in multiverse than a universe. The > example made up by Kent seems highly unrealistic - > Yes it does. It might be interesting if someone can come up

Re: Max and FPI

On 28 March 2014 07:49, Richard Ruquist wrote: > Brent, > > If as you say "in the multiverse everything happens and infinitely many > times" > then there can be only one multiverse, which negates a number of cosmology > theories like Linde's Chaotic Inflation Cosmology. But then the potential > h

Re: Max and FPI

Brent, If as you say "in the multiverse everything happens and infinitely many times" then there can be only one multiverse, which negates a number of cosmology theories like Linde's Chaotic Inflation Cosmology. But then the potential he used provides the best fit to BICEP2 gravitational-wave data

Re: Max and FPI

On 3/27/2014 12:51 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-03-27 5:39 GMT+01:00 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>: On 3/26/2014 9:03 PM, LizR wrote: On 27 March 2014 16:33, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: I don't think you can infer anything about gender preferenc

Re: Max and FPI

On 3/26/2014 11:38 PM, LizR wrote: OK, I suppose the argument makes sense, sort of (although it seems more likely to me that genes would act as though there is one universe whether that's the case or not, for reasons I already mentioned). Anyway let's assume it does, at least for the sake of ar

Re: Max and FPI

2014-03-27 5:39 GMT+01:00 meekerdb : > On 3/26/2014 9:03 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 27 March 2014 16:33, meekerdb wrote: > >> I don't think you can infer anything about gender preference for "triple >> or bust" vs "maintain what we've got" from evolutionary biology. >> > > Well OK, but what I've r

Re: Max and FPI

On 27 March 2014 17:39, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/26/2014 9:03 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 27 March 2014 16:33, meekerdb wrote: > >> I don't think you can infer anything about gender preference for "triple >> or bust" vs "maintain what we've got" from evolutionary biology. >> > > Well OK, but what I'

Re: Max and FPI

On 3/26/2014 9:03 PM, LizR wrote: On 27 March 2014 16:33, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: I don't think you can infer anything about gender preference for "triple or bust" vs "maintain what we've got" from evolutionary biology. Well OK, but what I've read (and indeed obs

Re: Max and FPI

On 27 March 2014 16:33, meekerdb wrote: > I don't think you can infer anything about gender preference for "triple > or bust" vs "maintain what we've got" from evolutionary biology. > Well OK, but what I've read (and indeed observed and experienced throughout my life) indicates that people, and

Re: Max and FPI

On 3/26/2014 8:14 PM, LizR wrote: On 27 March 2014 15:36, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 3/26/2014 7:05 PM, LizR wrote: I've read Mr Kent's paper, or most of it (I'm afraid with limited time I skipped a few bits that seemed incoherent to my fuzzy brain at least) a

Re: Max and FPI

On 27 March 2014 15:36, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/26/2014 7:05 PM, LizR wrote: > > I've read Mr Kent's paper, or most of it (I'm afraid with limited time I > skipped a few bits that seemed incoherent to my fuzzy brain at least) and I > have to admit it didn't appear to say anything for or against t

Re: Max and FPI

On 3/26/2014 7:05 PM, LizR wrote: I've read Mr Kent's paper, or most of it (I'm afraid with limited time I skipped a few bits that seemed incoherent to my fuzzy brain at least) and I have to admit it didn't appear to say anything for or against the MWI except that (a) he obviously doesn't like

Re: Max and FPI

I've read Mr Kent's paper, or most of it (I'm afraid with limited time I skipped a few bits that seemed incoherent to my fuzzy brain at least) and I have to admit it didn't appear to say anything for or against the MWI except that (a) he obviously doesn't like it, and (b) some people have apparentl

Re: Max and FPI

A possible one world solution (that I believe explains the Born rule) is Huw Price's time symmetry. But he got evasive when I asked him about the two slit experiment, imho (and I wasn't convinced by his response on gravitational collapse either...) On 26 March 2014 04:01, Bruno Marchal wrote: >

Re: Max and FPI

On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote: The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated

Re: Max and FPI

On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 4:48:20 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote: >> >> The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? >> >> I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly >> apologetic about MWI pleadin

Re: Max and FPI

On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote: > > The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? > > I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly > apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the fact > other interpretations had simil

Re: Max and FPI

Without a specific reason for wanting to be in a population the question is meaningless in my opinion, one could have all sorts of reasons in theory, so I'll assume that the point is to maximise your descendants. So I suppose the question boils down to what is the representation of each population

Re: Max and FPI

On 3/24/2014 12:17 AM, LizR wrote: Do you mean which population do I want to join in order to have the greatest chance of leaving descendants? I think that's the underlying assumption - but I didn't want to bias answers by putting it that way. Brent -- You received this message because you

Re: Max and FPI

On 24 March 2014 17:48, chris peck wrote: > I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. > I always find presentations disappointing in terms of information content, at least when compared to papers and articles, but I was more than happy to see Max "in the flesh" (and Richard Feynman for

Re: Max and FPI

Do you mean which population do I want to join in order to have the greatest chance of leaving descendants? By the way here is a link to the paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0624v2.pdf On 24 March 2014 19:57, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/23/2014 11:27 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 24 March 2014 17:48, ch

Re: Max and FPI

On 3/23/2014 11:27 PM, LizR wrote: On 24 March 2014 17:48, chris peck > wrote: The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? Er, no, lots of people got the wrong end of the stick and argued about it at length. I was one of the ones who said he proba

Re: Max and FPI

On 24 March 2014 17:48, chris peck wrote: > The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? > Er, no, lots of people got the wrong end of the stick and argued about it at length. I was one of the ones who said he probably meant ... whatever it turned out he meant. (Maybe I just don't have en

RE: Max and FPI

dress it except to comment that it was a little nutty. But really, in the world of QM interpretation barking mad is where things start. Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 21:05:53 +1300 Subject: Re: Max and FPI From: lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com He's talking about the fact t

Re: Max and FPI

He's talking about the fact that you get about 50% 0s and 50% 1s ... as we were discussing recently. I trust this clears up any lingering doubts about what he meant by this. On 23 March 2014 18:50, Russell Standish wrote: > On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:27:13PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: > > Here's Ma

Re: Max and FPI

On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:27:13PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: > Here's Max! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC0zHIf2Gkw > > Brent > Thanks for that. One thing that struck me was how ordinary the FPI argument (UDA step 3) seems when Max talks about it. But also how it generalises to unequal probabilit