date:20140101



On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/1/2014 3:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing  
in numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look  
inward, discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between truth  
about them and proof about them.


As an analysis of human pyschology that seems very fanicful to me.   
People invented gods long before Peano and Godel and even before the  
idea of mathematical proof.  Gods were just anthropomorphized  
physics; things did what they did because "it was their nature".


I agree. The religious feeling appears when we are ignorant. Since  
always, some machine can introspect and discover the root of the  
intrinsic ignorance, and since Gödel & Al. we know that PA and ZF can  
do that, at least in some sense. Now, thunder can be very impressive,  
and it is normal that humans mix their feeling about that intrinsic  
ignorance and the one which today appears to us as more mundane and  
easily explainable from our current knowledge. But introspection still  
leads us to what we can't ever understand, and to that root of  
intrinsic ignorance about something transcendentally bigger than us.  
Institutionalized religion tries to hide that self-discovery for  
question of manipulation and control.


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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality



On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:11, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/1/2014 2:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then there is the FPI emergence, which is made of all finite union  
of the finite piece of the UD work.


Don't you say that persons and matter are not computable because the  
number of UD states corresponding to a piece of matter is not finite?


Yes. Our states are computable. But then they are distributed in the  
unavoidable infinity of computations going through that state (in the  
first person sense), making the experience undetermined on those  
computations.




Isn't this the basis of no-cloning in comp?


Yes, indeed.


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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?


On 1/1/2014 11:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 3:22 AM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 12/31/2013 7:19 PM, LizR wrote:

That sounds a bit like multi-solipsism - and a bit like Kant (?) 
indicating that
we can never know the "thing in itself" only our interpretation of it.

(Actually isn't that also what comp says?)


I think that's what science has taught metaphysics.  We make up models that 
we can
comprehend and it they are good at explaining things and predicting things 
and they
are consilient with our other models then we provisionally adopt them, and 
that's
the best we can do. 



But Fuchs et al don't even adopt their model.  They say there is some underlying system 
(model) that explains our experiences, but for some reason deny there is any reality to 
that very model.


So far as I can see their model is that we describe our knowledge of systems by QM and 
when we make observations our knowledge changes - and that's the "collapse" of the 
wave-function.




Jason

 They may be right, be we can't know that.

Brent
"When Herod asked Jesus what truth was, Jesus replied that truth was every 
word that
proceeded from the mouth of God. Perhaps he should have said that truth was 
a
provisional reification of the most useful model."
   --- Anne O'Reilly


I don't know where Anne O'Reilly gets that quote. It was Pilate that asked "What is 
truth?" and Jesus made no reply.


Dunno.  She's Irish Catholic, so maybe it's a Catholic myth.

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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

2014-01-01 Thread LizR

On 2 January 2014 09:15, Jason Resch  wrote:

> Edgar,
>
> I believe I may understand your point about a universal present, but it is
> something relativity handles, as far as I can see, without having to
> postulate anything new.  Anything having the same (x, y, z, t) coordinates
> can interact, where t is coordinate time. It seems like you believe that
> because the twins are different ages (in different proper times), that they
> cannot interact. But they can, because each has traced exactly 10 light
> years through space-time (their coordinate times are the same).
>
> So you might say everything with the same coordinate time, at the same
> place (x, y, z) the same, shares a present moment. But you cannot use this
> fact to extrapolate to spatially separated things sharing a present. For
> this, the definition of a present (what things exist having the same
> coordinate times) differs in different reference frames.
>

Good luck, 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-01 Thread Chris de Morsella

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:50 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
reality

On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:16, LizR wrote:

My 15 year old son asked me "Why do people believe in God?"

Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in numbers
and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward, discover the gap
between G and G*, or the gap between truth about them and proof about them.

Then some machine try to communicate that experience---which is impossible,
and so they will use image and parables, which are not understood, and
parrots repeat, politician exploits, and little children believe they
parroting parents, teachers, etc.

We all believe, consciously or unconsciously,  in God, in that large sense
of a transcendental reason of our existence, but we are always wrong when we
project attributes to It/Her/Him, and much more wrong when invoking them for
direct terrestrial purposes, where "God" is only an authoritative argument
(always invalid, especially in the religion field, where it used the most).

>>Adults believing literally in fairy tales are just infants refusing to
grow spiritually. They are  governed by people who want steal the
responsibility and the maturity, and which have no interest at all in
spiritual research. The goal is to steal more easily the money and power. 

Religion – IMO -- can be distilled down to politics by other means; it
harnesses the deepest urges and powerful impulses within us and systemizes
these, providing channelized modalities of expression that provides the
worshipper with internal validation and preset answers, while corralling
them into a protean mass whose collective energy and “will” can be directed
towards achieving whatever political goals is profitable for the individuals
controlling the belief establishment.

Something I find fascinating is how so many religions and pseudo-religions
seek to establish a monopoly on belief…. on what can be believed and what
cannot be believed. If belief is the currency of religion; it stands to
reason that established faiths seek to maintain a stranglehold on the entire
psychological apparatus of belief within the populations of individuals that
are born into the regions (or communities) where these organized belief
systems prevail.

Chris

Bruno

Once I'd sung a couple of verses of "The Second Sitting for the Last Supper"
by 10cc (as you do) I started to explain the various angles on this -
avoiding cognitive dissonance, being sure that you're right in the face of
all the evidence, having answers to all possible criticisms because of "The
Book", being able to take the moral highground and patronise all the deluded
fools who haven't seen the light, and so on.

No relevance to the present topic, of course.

-- 
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: Talk by Dr. Timothy Mousseau on the effects of radionuclides on bird, insect, plant and animal populations in the Chernobyl exclusion zone and in the Fukushima exclusion zone

2014-01-01 Thread Chris de Morsella

35 minute talk.  Supporting slide-show from Chernobyl/Fukushima research. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rAJnIxQgxU

 

-- 
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?


On 1/1/2014 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 01 Jan 2014, at 01:18, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/31/2013 1:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> 
wrote:


On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote:


But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's
Advocate, or do you honestly not see the usefulness of multiverse 
theories?


Partly playing Devil's Advocate - but doing so because I'm not convinced 
that
Everett's MWI is the last word and because I don't like to see the hard 
problem of
predicting/explaining *this* to be fuzzed over by an easy "everythingism".

Your use of disparaging language to sum up the opposing position doesn't fill me with 
optimism that you actually get why this hard problem may in fact have been solved. 
There is no "fuzzing over" involved in the MWI, quite the reverse - you need to "fuzz 
things over" if you want to get "this" out of QM as a unique solution. Collapse of the 
wave function and so on -- a "fuzzy" hand-waving exercise.


That's the usual argument of MWI advocates, "It's better than collapse of the wave 
function."  But is it?  It's only better than Copenhagen.  What about Penrose?  And 
what about the subjective Bayesian interpretation.




I'm not 100% ken on the straw man, either. /No one /thinks the MWI is the last word, 
because it isn't a TOE. But it /may/ be a good approximation (or it may not, of course).


?? It's an /*interpretation*/.


I disagree with this. Everett did propose a new theory. It is SWE, that is QM without 
collapse. *All* interpretations of it are multi-realities. Everett is just QM, and the 
Everett branches comes from not avoiding the contagion of superposition, which follows 
from SWE linearity.  The existence of the relative superposition is a theorem of QM. 
Copenhagen is SWE+ collapse, and this is self-contradictory or quite fuzzy (what is the 
collapse?).


It is changing your knowledge of the wave-function - replacing some uncertainty with some 
knowledge.


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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?


On 1/1/2014 3:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:27, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/31/2013 2:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 30 Dec 2013, at 21:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:


Dear LizR and Brent,

I will try to go at this from a different direction. What exactly does "fundamental 
level" mean? Does there have to be "something fundamental"?



Fundamental is often used in two senses. either as "very important". In that sense 
physics and math are fundamental.


Or is the sense of "primitive", that is, what we have to assume at the start, like the 
primitive symbol in a theory, intended to denote what we admit to exist at the start. 
We need them because we cannot derive anything from nothing. Even in the "nothing 
theories", we need the mathematical axioms to handle some notion of nothing.



There is another way that avoids assuming that there is something "fundamental".  It is 
a sort of ring of explanation (actually suggested by Bruno):


Math->Physics->Biology->Evolution->Humans->Culture->Science->Math

Of course it is objected that this is viciously circular; but I counter that if the 
circle is big enough to take everything in, then it is virtuously circular.


Such circles recur in the UD*, but to define the UD, you still need to postulate a 
universal base. You need at least the assumption of the laws of addition and 
multiplication, or abstraction and application (with the combinators). But then you 
don't need, nor can use, anything else, in the ontology. Physics and psychology can be 
explained from there (even easily if comp is invoked at the metalevel, but this is no 
more needed "after "the UDA is understood (normally).


But you need an explanation for arithmetic.  Why do we conceptualize similar things as 
enumerable?  Why did we invent numbers and addition and multiplication?  That's the 
advantage of the ring, you can start at any point you think you understand and explain 
other things in terms of it.  That's why we don't teach children arithmetic by giving the 
Peano's axioms.  First, we give them counting and examples.  We're starting a "science", 
empirical observation.


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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality


On 1/1/2014 3:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in numbers and 
induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward, discover the gap between G and 
G*, or the gap between truth about them and proof about them.


As an analysis of human pyschology that seems very fanicful to me.  People invented gods 
long before Peano and Godel and even before the idea of mathematical proof.  Gods were 
just anthropomorphized physics; things did what they did because "it was their nature".


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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

Edgar,

I believe I may understand your point about a universal present, but it is
something relativity handles, as far as I can see, without having to
postulate anything new.  Anything having the same (x, y, z, t) coordinates
can interact, where t is coordinate time. It seems like you believe that
because the twins are different ages (in different proper times), that they
cannot interact. But they can, because each has traced exactly 10 light
years through space-time (their coordinate times are the same).

So you might say everything with the same coordinate time, at the same
place (x, y, z) the same, shares a present moment. But you cannot use this
fact to extrapolate to spatially separated things sharing a present. For
this, the definition of a present (what things exist having the same
coordinate times) differs in different reference frames.

Jason


On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 01:20:35AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>> > Jason,
>> >
>> > That's a totally off the wall answer. When the two shake hands it's not
>> > just photons that are interacting, it's the electrons, protons and
>> neutrons
>> > of the matter of their hands which don't travel at the speed of light.
>> >
>> > Goodness gracious!
>> >
>> > Edgar
>> >
>>
>> Jason is correct - electron-electron and electron-proton interactions
>> are mediated by photons. Only nucleon-nucleon interactions are
>> mediated by different stuff (gluons in that case), but for all
>> practical purposes, the strong force is irrelevant to the phenomenon
>> of handshaking.
>>
>
> And if it were, say in some particle accelerator, the gluons also travel
> at the speed of light and their present is spread across all proper times.
>
>
>>
>> Which gets us to the more important point. You idealise a handshake as
>> instantaneous as a demonstration of your "present moment", but in fact
>> those interactions Jason was alluding to are smeared out over a
>> temporal duration of the order of a few picoseconds (a duration well
>> measurable by current day technology - my laptop's CPU clock cycles on
>> a sub-picosecond timescale, for example).
>>
>
> You must have a VERY fast laptop! :-)
>
> Jason
>
>
>> This doesn't matter much for human affairs, but becomes quite
>> significant when extrapolating over cosmological scales.
>>
>> Cheers
>> --
>>
>>
>> 
>> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
>> Principal, High Performance Coders
>> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
>> University of New South Wales  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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>

-- 
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality


On 1/1/2014 2:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then there is the FPI emergence, which is made of all finite union of the finite piece 
of the UD work.


Don't you say that persons and matter are not computable because the number of UD states 
corresponding to a piece of matter is not finite?  Isn't this the basis of no-cloning in comp?


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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Russell Standish wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 01:20:35AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> > Jason,
> >
> > That's a totally off the wall answer. When the two shake hands it's not
> > just photons that are interacting, it's the electrons, protons and
> neutrons
> > of the matter of their hands which don't travel at the speed of light.
> >
> > Goodness gracious!
> >
> > Edgar
> >
>
> Jason is correct - electron-electron and electron-proton interactions
> are mediated by photons. Only nucleon-nucleon interactions are
> mediated by different stuff (gluons in that case), but for all
> practical purposes, the strong force is irrelevant to the phenomenon
> of handshaking.
>

And if it were, say in some particle accelerator, the gluons also travel at
the speed of light and their present is spread across all proper times.


>
> Which gets us to the more important point. You idealise a handshake as
> instantaneous as a demonstration of your "present moment", but in fact
> those interactions Jason was alluding to are smeared out over a
> temporal duration of the order of a few picoseconds (a duration well
> measurable by current day technology - my laptop's CPU clock cycles on
> a sub-picosecond timescale, for example).
>

You must have a VERY fast laptop! :-)

Jason


> This doesn't matter much for human affairs, but becomes quite
> significant when extrapolating over cosmological scales.
>
> Cheers
> --
>
>
> 
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales  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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 3:22 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 12/31/2013 7:19 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>> That sounds a bit like multi-solipsism - and a bit like Kant (?)
>> indicating that we can never know the "thing in itself" only our
>> interpretation of it.
>>
>> (Actually isn't that also what comp says?)
>>
>
> I think that's what science has taught metaphysics.  We make up models
> that we can comprehend and it they are good at explaining things and
> predicting things and they are consilient with our other models then we
> provisionally adopt them, and that's the best we can do.


But Fuchs et al don't even adopt their model.  They say there is some
underlying system (model) that explains our experiences, but for some
reason deny there is any reality to that very model.

Jason



>  They may be right, be we can't know that.
>
> Brent
> "When Herod asked Jesus what truth was, Jesus replied that truth was every
> word that proceeded from the mouth of God. Perhaps he should have said that
> truth was a provisional reification of the most useful model."
>--- Anne O'Reilly
>
>
I don't know where Anne O'Reilly gets that quote. It was Pilate that asked
"What is truth?" and Jesus made no reply.

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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 4:33 AM, LizR  wrote:

> On 1 January 2014 21:34, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 12/31/2013 7:22 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>  On 1 January 2014 13:54, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>  Of course in Hilbert space there's no FTL because the system is just
>>> one point and when a measurement is performed it projects the system ray
>>> onto a mixture of subspaces; spacetime coordinates are just some labels.
>>>
>>
>>  I thought there was no FTL in ordinary space, either? (I mean, none
>> required for the MWI?)
>>
>> Right, but the state in Hilbert space is something like |x1 y1 z1 s1 x2
>> y2 z2 s2> and when Alice measures s1 at (x1 y1 z1) then s2 is correlated at
>> (x2 y2 z2).  As I understand it the MWI advocates say this isn't FTL
>> because this is just selecting out one of infinitely many results |s1 s2>.
>> But the 'selection' has to pair up the spins in a way that violates Bell's
>> inequality.
>>
>
> If I understand correctly ... actually, let me just check if I do, before
> I go any further, in case I'm talking out my arse. Which wouldn't be the
> first time.
>
> I assume we're talking about an EPR correlation here?
>
> If yes, I've never understood how the MWI explains this.
>

The thing to remember is entanglement is the same thing as measurement.
 The entangled pair of particles have measured each other, but they remain
isolated from the rest of the environment (and thus in a superposition, of
say UD and DU). Once you as an observer measure either of the two
particles, you have by extension measured both of them, since the position,
which you measured has already measured the electron, and now you are
entangled in their superposition.

Jason



> I've see it explained with ASCII diagrams by Bill Taylor on the FOAR
> forum, and far be it from me to quibble with Bill, but it never made sense
> to me. Somehow, the various branches just join up correctly...
>
> The only explanation I've come across that I really understand for EPR,
> and that doesn't violate locality etc is the time symmetry one, where all
> influences travel along the light cone, but are allowed to go either way in
> time.
>
> So although I quite like the MWI because of its ontological implications,
> this is one point on which I am agnostic, because I don't understand the
> explanation.
>
>>
>>
>>  In fact, it's generally assumed to be very, very STL (unless light
>>> itself is involved). At great distances from the laboratory, one imagines
>>> that the superposition caused by whatever we might do to cats in boxes
>>> would decay to the level of noise, and fail to spread any further.
>>>
>>>  That's an interesting viewpoint - but it's taking spacetime instead of
>>> Hilbert space to be the arena.  If we take the cat, either alive or dead,
>>> and shoot it off into space then, as a signal, it won't fall off as 1/r^2.
>>>
>>>  No, but it will travel STL!
>>
>>
>> Sure.  I was just commenting on the idea that the entanglement has a kind
>> of limited range because of 'background noise'.  An interesting idea,
>> similar to one I've had that there is a smallest non-zero probability.
>>
>> But if you want to get FTL, that's possible if Alice and Bob are near
>> opposite sides of our Hubble sphere when they do their measurements.  They
>> are then already moving apart faster than c and will never be able to
>> communicate - with each other, but we, in the middle will eventually
>> receive reports from them so that we can confirm the violation of Bell's
>> inequality.
>>
>
> Hmm, that's a good point. That would, however, fit in nicely with time
> symmetry (which really needs a nice acronym, I'm not sure "TS" cuts it). I
> tend to evangelise a bit on time symmetry, but only because everyone else
> roundly ignores it, and it seems to me that it at least has potential.
>
>
> --
> 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On 01 Jan 2014, at 16:46, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear Bruno,

On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:

Dear Stephen,

On 31 Dec 2013, at 20:19, Stephen Paul King wrote:

How does it emerge?

The UD, alias RA, emulates all machines.

I see this as true, but in the sense of a static representational
model. There is no "action" involved!

Then RA would only describe the computations, not emulate them. But
it does. "Action" is recognized by the machine inside. Actions and
changes are defined and measure internally by machines *relatively*
to universal numbers. Here comp generalized Special relativity,
somehow. There is no absolute time, except, if we want see it in
that way, in the 0, 1, 2, 3, number sequence.

This puzzles me. How is the "recognition of action" and definitions
and measures of action equivalent to action itself?

They are not. Some actions can "happen" because some diophantine
relations emulates some 'history'. The recognition of action will
appear when the diophantine relation emulates some history involving
self-aware universal numbers. They do the recognition relatively to
that history.

The map is the territory?

The map is in the territory. There is a fixed point.

We agree that there is no absolute time. :-)

OK.

And if there is one, aren't there indefinitely many emerging?

Yes, there are infinitely many emerging, and that is why there is a
global relative 1-indeterminacy on the whole UD*, or RA emulation.

Are you saying that the FPI obtains from the infinite number of
"emergings"?

There are two notions of "emergence" used here. The emergence by the
"theoremhood", like when saying that once God created the natural
numbers and said "add & multiply", you can define the prime numbers
and they emerge from all arithmetical relations definable in
arithmetic. Then there is the FPI emergence, which is made of all
finite union of the finite piece of the UD work. You can say that
the FPI bears on all what emerge in the first sense, yes.

In my thinking FPI is the result of a failure of computations to
achieve exact bisimulation. How this failure occurs exactly I do not
know.

Does it have to be "global"?

Yes. like in step 7, we are confronted to the whole of UD* (or to
the whole of the Sigma_1 truth).

This bothers me, as it requires an eternity.

Yes, but the 1p don't see it, and the eternity is not in the ontology,
only in what the 1p misses.

I worry about this because it seems to assume a privileged observer
that has the ability to simultaneously perceive all of the emergings.

He perceives only one "outcome" (like in the WM-duplication),
selected among the infinities of possible computations emulated in RA.

Yes, that "one" can obtain with an infinite number of constraints
imposed on the collection of computations.

Or not, but no matter what, that happens in infinitely many
diophantine relations.

A pigeon hole principle. This is why I promote the interaction/
participation picture of Wheeler.

I only give a problem. Solve it by any way you can, but try to
translate it in term of the G/G*/S4Grz/XYZ to get the quanta/qualia
distinction relevant in the comp mind body problem.

I reject that "God's eye view".

The outer 3p God's view is given, in comp, by the arithmetical
truth. It is a little and simple God, like in Plotinus. It is far
simpler than the Noùs or than the Universal Soul.

I say that such is not necessary! Truth can be completely local and
will give us what we have.

It depends from what you search.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in
the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe
.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the
use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may
contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may
be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify
sender immedi

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

Dear Stephen,

On 01 Jan 2014, at 16:35, Stephen Paul King wrote:

I think that we should start with 1p - the solipsist - as
fundamental and then work from there to solve the problem of the
other which will give us a 3p.

That's for woman and engineers. The doer. It is only the right brain,
and in a manner were you will not find any two different right brains
ever agreeing.

Once you say "yes" to the doctor, you don't even need to define the
1p, just believe it is conserved for 3p transform of the body.

But then in the ideal case of correct machine, defining rational
beliefs by provability, the definition of knowledge, and thus of the
knower, given by Theaetetus reappears!.

Computationalism provides 3p accounts on the 1p, by computer science
and the self-referential logics G and G* and their intensional variants.

With comp we accept the others and the 3p, and science can only build
on that. The 1p is personal, private, non definable. I agree it is
ultrafundamental, and comp illustrates its role in the physical
selection, but it is not a primitive concept in the basic ontology.
Computer science gives them on a plateau.

Bruno

On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:

On 31 Dec 2013, at 19:59, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear Bruno,

Is a 3p view necessarily an ontological primitive?

OF course: no. Only the one we assume at the start.

But an ontological primitive is arguably necessarily 3p in the
scientific explanation of the 1p, or on anything.

Bruno

If we follow Wheeler's reasoning there is no such thing!

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:

On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Jason,

Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations.

This is ambiguous, and I am not sure you are using the standard
sense of "computations".

The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are
conscious, is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as
explained in the other post.

Does it help you to answer "yes" or "no" to the doctor who propose
you an artificial brain simulating your brain or body at some level
of substitution?

Is the functioning of a brain Turing emulable, in your theory?

The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is
real and actually exists means it must be present.

It means *a* reality is present. *the* reality is the problem, what
we search, using this or that theories.

That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common
present moment we all experience our existence within, which is the
shared locus of reality, and that present moment is the only locus
of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc.

In the first person view. Not necessarily in the 3p view, and it
should be better so, I think, to avoid solipsism and mono-dream.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

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

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the
use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may
contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may
be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error,
notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.

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

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-01 Thread Stephen Paul King

Dear Bruno,


On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Dear Stephen,
>
>
> On 31 Dec 2013, at 20:19, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>
>
> I really do appreciate the details!
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>  On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>>  On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>  On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>  On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>>> Liz,
>>>
>>>  Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is the
>>> universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results of the
>>> computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time.
>>>
>>>   So an external time dimension is required.
>>
>>  So imagine a universe with a time dimension and some space-less
>> computations...I'll try.
>>
>>
>> This shouldn't be any harder than imagining Bruno's Turing machine
>> computing everything...including space and time.
>>
>>
>>  Space, time and physical things are not computed. They emerge in the
>> view of "self-aware" Löbian machine, which exist in arithmetic.
>>
>>
>> But not all of arithmetic is computed by the UD,
>>
>>
>> OK. The UD, seen as a prover, proves only the "ExP(x)" truth, but of
>> course it obeys itself to the whole of arithmetic, for example, it will
>> never emulate a correct machine proving a false pi_1 statements (AxP(x)).
>>
>>
>>
> The notion of self-obedience, is that a form of self-reference?
>
>
> Define 'self-obedience'.
>

" The UD, seen as a prover, proves only the "ExP(x)" truth, but of course*
it obeys itself *to the whole of arithmetic, for example, it will never
emulate a correct machine proving a false pi_1 statements (AxP(x))."

You defined it: "it obeys itself". That is "self-obedience, no?



>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> so how can you be sure that this Lobian machine emerges?
>>
>>
>> Because the existence of some Löbian machine is a sigma_1 (even sigma_0)
>> sentence, as his the existence of their finite piece of computational
>> histories.
>>
>
> OK. Does this follow from Lowenheim-Skolem?
>
>
>
> ?
> It follows from the sigma_1 completeness of RA.  (p -> Bp, for p sigma_1,
> is true for RA. It is not provable as RA is not Löbian).
>
> (Lowenheim-Skolem is invoked to explain why arithmetic from inside can
> seem infinitely bigger than from outside, but this is not used here).
>


OK



>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> How does it emerge?
>>
>>
>> The UD, alias RA, emulates all machines.
>>
>
> I see this as true, but in the sense of a static representational model.
> There is no "action" involved!
>
>
>
> Then RA would only describe the computations, not emulate them. But it
> does. "Action" is recognized by the machine inside. Actions and changes are
> defined and measure internally by machines *relatively* to universal
> numbers. Here comp generalized Special relativity, somehow. There is no
> absolute time, except, if we want see it in that way, in the 0, 1, 2, 3,
>  number sequence.
>

This puzzles me. How is the "recognition of action" and definitions and
measures of action equivalent to action itself? The map is the territory?

We agree that there is no absolute time. :-)




>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> And if there is one, aren't there indefinitely many emerging?
>>
>>
>> Yes, there are infinitely many emerging, and that is why there is a
>> global relative 1-indeterminacy on the whole UD*, or RA emulation.
>>
>
> Are you saying that the FPI obtains from the infinite number of
> "emergings"?
>
>
>
> There are two notions of "emergence" used here. The emergence by the
> "theoremhood", like when saying that once God created the natural numbers
> and said "add & multiply", you can define the prime numbers and they emerge
> from all arithmetical relations definable in arithmetic. Then there is the
> FPI emergence, which is made of all finite union of the finite piece of the
> UD work. You can say that the FPI bears on all what emerge in the first
> sense, yes.
>

In my thinking FPI is the result of a failure of computations to achieve
exact bisimulation. How this failure occurs exactly I do not know.



>
>
>
>
> Does it have to be "global"?
>
>
> Yes. like in step 7, we are confronted to the whole of UD* (or to the
> whole of the Sigma_1 truth).
>

This bothers me, as it requires an eternity.



>
>
>
> I worry about this because it seems to assume a privileged observer that
> has the ability to simultaneously perceive all of the emergings.
>
>
> He perceives only one "outcome" (like in the WM-duplication), selected
> among the infinities of possible computations emulated in RA.
>

Yes, that "one" can obtain with an infinite number of constraints imposed
on the collection of computations. A pigeon hole principle. This is why I
promote the interaction/participation picture of Wheeler.



>
>
>
> I reject that "God's eye view".
>
>
> The outer 3p God's view is given, in comp, by the arithmetical truth. It
> is a little and sim

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-01 Thread Stephen Paul King

Dear Bruno,

   I think that we should start with 1p - the solipsist - as fundamental
and then work from there to solve the problem of the other which will give
us a 3p.


On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 31 Dec 2013, at 19:59, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> Dear Bruno,
>
>   Is a 3p view necessarily an ontological primitive?
>
>
>
> OF course: no. Only the one we assume at the start.
>
> But an ontological primitive is arguably necessarily 3p in the scientific
> explanation of the 1p, or on anything.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If we follow Wheeler's reasoning there is no such thing!
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>>  Jason,
>>>
>>> Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations.
>>>
>>
>> This is ambiguous, and I am not sure you are using the standard sense of
>> "computations".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious,
>>> is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other
>>> post.
>>>
>>
>> Does it help you to answer "yes" or "no" to the doctor who propose you an
>> artificial brain simulating your brain or body at some level of
>> substitution?
>>
>> Is the functioning of a brain Turing emulable, in your theory?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real
>>> and actually exists means it must be present.
>>>
>>
>> It means *a* reality is present. *the* reality is the problem, what we
>> search, using this or that theories.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present
>>> moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared locus of
>>> reality, and that present moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no
>>> block time, no MW, etc.
>>>
>>
>> In the first person view. Not necessarily in the 3p view, and it should
>> be better so, I think, to avoid solipsism and mono-dream.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
>> topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Kindest Regards,
>
> Stephen Paul King
>
> Senior Researcher
>
> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>
> stephe...@provensecure.com
>
>  http://www.provensecure.us/
>
>
> “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
> the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
> immediately.”
>
> --
> 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient,

Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

2014-01-01 Thread Russell Standish

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 01:20:35AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jason,
> 
> That's a totally off the wall answer. When the two shake hands it's not 
> just photons that are interacting, it's the electrons, protons and neutrons 
> of the matter of their hands which don't travel at the speed of light.
> 
> Goodness gracious!
> 
> Edgar
> 

Jason is correct - electron-electron and electron-proton interactions
are mediated by photons. Only nucleon-nucleon interactions are
mediated by different stuff (gluons in that case), but for all
practical purposes, the strong force is irrelevant to the phenomenon
of handshaking.

Which gets us to the more important point. You idealise a handshake as
instantaneous as a demonstration of your "present moment", but in fact
those interactions Jason was alluding to are smeared out over a
temporal duration of the order of a few picoseconds (a duration well
measurable by current day technology - my laptop's CPU clock cycles on
a sub-picosecond timescale, for example). 

This doesn't matter much for human affairs, but becomes quite
significant when extrapolating over cosmological scales.

Cheers
-- 

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: What are wavefunctions?



On 01 Jan 2014, at 09:34, meekerdb wrote:

But if you want to get FTL, that's possible if Alice and Bob are  
near opposite sides of our Hubble sphere when they do their  
measurements.  They are then already moving apart faster than c and  
will never be able to communicate - with each other, but we, in the  
middle will eventually receive reports from them so that we can  
confirm the violation of Bell's inequality.


In our branch. So if we don't believe in the FTL, we must accept the  
many worlds, which is nothing more than accepting the physical reality  
of the superposition, which QL confirms all the time.


Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?



On 01 Jan 2014, at 01:18, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/31/2013 1:58 PM, LizR wrote:

On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb  wrote:
On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote:

But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being  
Devil's Advocate, or do you honestly not see the usefulness of  
multiverse theories?


Partly playing Devil's Advocate - but doing so because I'm not  
convinced that Everett's MWI is the last word and because I don't  
like to see the hard problem of predicting/explaining *this* to be  
fuzzed over by an easy "everythingism".


Your use of disparaging language to sum up the opposing position  
doesn't fill me with optimism that you actually get why this hard  
problem may in fact have been solved. There is no "fuzzing over"  
involved in the MWI, quite the reverse - you need to "fuzz things  
over" if you want to get "this" out of QM as a unique solution.  
Collapse of the wave function and so on -- a "fuzzy" hand-waving  
exercise.


That's the usual argument of MWI advocates, "It's better than  
collapse of the wave function."  But is it?  It's only better than  
Copenhagen.  What about Penrose?  And what about the subjective  
Bayesian interpretation.




I'm not 100% ken on the straw man, either. No one thinks the MWI is  
the last word, because it isn't a TOE. But it may be a good  
approximation (or it may not, of course).


?? It's an interpretation.


I disagree with this. Everett did propose a new theory. It is SWE,  
that is QM without collapse. *All* interpretations of it are multi- 
realities. Everett is just QM, and the Everett branches comes from not  
avoiding the contagion of superposition, which follows from SWE  
linearity.  The existence of the relative superposition is a theorem  
of QM. Copenhagen is SWE+ collapse, and this is self-contradictory or  
quite fuzzy (what is the collapse?).


Bruno




Interpretations are only useful in pointing to new tests or new  
theories - they've not approximations.


If it's a good approximation, it solves the problem of "why this  
history?" without resorting to any extra doodads on top of the  
basic equations. Or so I'm told.


I'd say adding infinitely many worlds just to get a probability to  
come out 1/pi is a lot of doodads.




AFAICS you either need to have a reason why it "just comes out this  
way" or you have to use an Everett/comp style explanation. If you  
have a third type of explanation, please tell me!


No, in science you don't always need to have an explanation.   
Sometimes it's "I don't know."



Otherwise you're just saying "I don't like it, so it can't be true!"


I didn't say I don't like it. It may point the way forward.  But I  
don't like the evangelical tone of some of it's disciples.


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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 01 Jan 2014, at 00:05, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/31/2013 9:54 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 12:12 PM, John Clark
wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Jason Resch
wrote:

> There are at least two possible answers to the bell inequalities:
1. Nonlocal influences

There are not "at least two" there are exactly two, but yes,
things might not be local.

>2. Mutliple outcomes for each measurement

Yes, things might not be realistic. We know that at best one of
those 2 commonplace assumptions is wrong, at worse both are.

> If you choose 2, then you don't need 1.

Yes, but locality OR realism OR both must be wrong.

>> But MWI could be true because although it is realistic it is not
local.

> It is local,

I sorta like the MWI but apparently you are not a fan because if
what you say is true then the MWI is dead wrong.

Explain why the following table shows that MWI is local, and
realistic on the wave function and universal wave function:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison_of_interpretations

The Wikipedia reference:

Locality in the Everett Interpretation of Heisenberg-Picture Quantum
Mechanics

Mark A. Rubin
(Submitted on 14 Mar 2001 (v1), last revised 10 May 2001 (this
version, v2))
Bell's theorem depends crucially on counterfactual reasoning, and is
mistakenly interpreted as ruling out a local explanation for the
correlations which can be observed between the results of
measurements performed on spatially-separated quantum systems. But
in fact the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics, in the
Heisenberg picture, provides an alternative local explanation for
such correlations. Measurement-type interactions lead, not to many
worlds but, rather, to many local copies of experimental systems and
the observers who measure their properties. Transformations of the
Heisenberg-picture operators corresponding to the properties of
these systems and observers, induced by measurement interactions,
"label" each copy and provide the mechanism which, e.g., ensures
that each copy of one of the observers in an EPRB or GHZM experiment
will only interact with the "correct" copy of the other observer(s).
The conceptual problem of nonlocality is thus replaced with a
conceptual problem of proliferating labels, as correlated systems
and observers undergo measurement-type interactions with newly-
encountered objects and instruments; it is suggested that this
problem may be resolved by considering quantum field theory rather
than the quantum mechanics of particles.

Comments: 18 pages, no figures. Minor changes
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Journal reference: Found. Phys. Lett. 14 (2001) 301-322
Report number: WW-10184
Cite as:arXiv:quant-ph/0103079

just moves the problem from FTL signaling to FTL labeling.

It just show that in the MW, everything is local. The "label"
denomination is just a bit ridiculous, as the information spread in
the local universe, and this is a MWI differentiation/mulitiplication.
Quantum field will not make those parallel -branches disappear. Nice
article which makes well the local point (just looking at it quickly,
a first january!).

Bruno

Jason

We already know MWI is realistic and ANY theory that is both
realistic AND local can NOT be consistent with experiment. And if
experiment says that's not the way things are then that's just not
the way things are.

> You can have multiple outcomes for a measurement and realism.

No you can not because that's not what physicists mean when they
use the word "realistic", they mean that a wave or a particle
possesses one specific attribute even if it has not been measured.

That is hidden variable. There cannot be a single hidden value but
there can be multiple real values. Hidden variables are something
different from realism, which is a reality independent of
measurement or observation.

Perhaps that is the only thing we are arguing over. Definitions.
What you say seems correct to me if what you call reality is things
possess "single-valued hidden variables".

For example, if a photon already has one specific polarization
even before its quantum entangled twin has been measured then it is
realistic.

It has many specific polarizations before it is measured.

> Locality has a specific definition in physics,

Yes.

> that things are only affected by other things (fields or
particles) in direct proximity to each other.

Once a universe has split off it can have no effect on us
whatsoever nor us to it. And someplace that the laws of physics
forbid us from going to or seeing is not in our "direct proximity".

The whole universe doesn't split off, rather superpositions spread
from particle to particle at sub-light speeds.

See the answer to Question 12:
http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints/manyworlds.html

This is a non-

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:58, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Hi Brent,

It is only vicious if there is no time. For example:
Math->Physics->Biology->Evolution->Humans->Culture->Science->Math' -
>Physics' -> ...

That spiral too in the UD*, but the Brent's circles also. Without any
paradox involved. Note that Gödel found solution of GR with explicit
circular time loop, too.

The knowledge evolves in time.

Relatively, yes.

Bruno

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 4:27 PM, meekerdb
wrote:

On 12/31/2013 2:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 Dec 2013, at 21:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear LizR and Brent,

I will try to go at this from a different direction. What
exactly does "fundamental level" mean? Does there have to be
"something fundamental"?

Fundamental is often used in two senses. either as "very
important". In that sense physics and math are fundamental.

Or is the sense of "primitive", that is, what we have to assume at
the start, like the primitive symbol in a theory, intended to
denote what we admit to exist at the start. We need them because we
cannot derive anything from nothing. Even in the "nothing
theories", we need the mathematical axioms to handle some notion of
nothing.

There is another way that avoids assuming that there is something
"fundamental". It is a sort of ring of explanation (actually
suggested by Bruno):

Math->Physics->Biology->Evolution->Humans->Culture->Science->Math

Of course it is objected that this is viciously circular; but I
counter that if the circle is big enough to take everything in, then
it is virtuously circular.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in
the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe
.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:39, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/31/2013 2:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
To be sure, the material hypostases are not transitive, so when we  
observe, we don't observe that we observe, but when we feel or  
know, it is the case that we feel feeling and we know that we know  
(although not as such).

Here I use comp + Theaetetus.

But then to "know that we know" requires only that we know that we  
have a belief and that it's true:

B(Bp+p)+(Bp+p) = B(Bp)+Bp+p

that seems like an easy path to knowledge, since I suppose that Bp- 
>B(Bp).

We do have Bp -> BBp (as BP itself is sigma_1, and Löban machine  
proves p -> Bp for all sigm_1 proposition).

In this system isn't it the case that

 ((p+q)->s)->((Bp+Bq)->Bs)

(p+q) -> s
thus by necessitation
B((p+q) -> s)
B((p+q) -> s) -> (B(p+q) -> Bs)   instance of the axiom K : B(a-> b) - 
> (Ba -> Bb)

B(p+q) <-> Bp + Bq(normal modal logic)
B((p+q) -> s) -> ((Bp+Bq) -> Bs) substitution preceding line
((Bp+Bq) -> Bs)  (modus ponens)

So it looks we can derive your:((p+q)->s)->((Bp+Bq)->Bs)

But alas we have just use the deduction rule, which is not valid in  
the modal context when we use the necessitation rule. If not we could  
derive p -> Bp from the necessitation rule, and this is incorrect.
"p -> Bp" is usually wrong. This is easy to show by using Kripke  
semantics. Just take a world alpha with p true, accessing a world beta  
with p false. In alpha, p -> Bp is false.

Yet the rhs doesn't generally hold.

It does not. You confuse the necessitation rule (we can derive Bp from  
p), and the so called "trivial" formula: p->Bp.

In G we have neither Bp -> p, nor p -> Bp.
We do have have p -> Bp in G1 (the "G" we obtained when we limit the  
arithmetical interpretation of the variable atomic sentence (p,  
q, ...) on the sigma_1 sentence.

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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?



On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:27, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/31/2013 2:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 30 Dec 2013, at 21:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:


Dear LizR and Brent,

  I will try to go at this from a different direction. What  
exactly does "fundamental level" mean? Does there have to be  
"something fundamental"?



Fundamental is often used in two senses. either as "very  
important". In that sense physics and math are fundamental.


Or is the sense of "primitive", that is, what we have to assume at  
the start, like the primitive symbol in a theory, intended to  
denote what we admit to exist at the start. We need them because we  
cannot derive anything from nothing. Even in the "nothing  
theories", we need the mathematical axioms to handle some notion of  
nothing.



There is another way that avoids assuming that there is something  
"fundamental".  It is a sort of ring of explanation (actually  
suggested by Bruno):


Math->Physics->Biology->Evolution->Humans->Culture->Science->Math

Of course it is objected that this is viciously circular; but I  
counter that if the circle is big enough to take everything in, then  
it is virtuously circular.


Such circles recur in the UD*, but to define the UD, you still need to  
postulate a universal base. You need at least the assumption of the  
laws of addition and multiplication, or abstraction and application  
(with the combinators). But then you don't need, nor can use, anything  
else, in the ontology. Physics and psychology can be explained from  
there (even easily if comp is invoked at the metalevel, but this is no  
more needed "after "the UDA is understood (normally).


Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality



On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:16, LizR wrote:


My 15 year old son asked me "Why do people believe in God?"



Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in  
numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward,  
discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between truth about them  
and proof about them.


Then some machine try to communicate that experience---which is  
impossible, and so they will use image and parables, which are not  
understood, and parrots repeat, politician exploits, and little  
children believe they parroting parents, teachers, etc.


We all believe, consciously or unconsciously,  in God, in that large  
sense of a transcendental reason of our existence, but we are always  
wrong when we project attributes to It/Her/Him, and much more wrong  
when invoking them for direct terrestrial purposes, where "God" is  
only an authoritative argument (always invalid, especially in the  
religion field, where it used the most).


Adults believing literally in fairy tales are just infants refusing to  
grow spiritually. They are  governed by people who want steal the  
responsibility and the maturity, and which have no interest at all in  
spiritual research. The goal is to steal more easily the money and  
power.


Bruno




Once I'd sung a couple of verses of "The Second Sitting for the Last  
Supper" by 10cc (as you do) I started to explain the various angles  
on this - avoiding cognitive dissonance, being sure that you're  
right in the face of all the evidence, having answers to all  
possible criticisms because of "The Book", being able to take the  
moral highground and patronise all the deluded fools who haven't  
seen the light, and so on.


No relevance to the present topic, of course.


--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: What are wavefunctions?



On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:11, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/31/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 30 Dec 2013, at 23:32, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/30/2013 2:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:45 PM, meekerdb   
wrote:

On 12/30/2013 1:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:57 PM, meekerdb   
wrote:

On 12/30/2013 12:04 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:41 PM, meekerdb  
 wrote:

On 12/30/2013 11:17 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:00 PM, meekerdb  
 wrote:

On 12/30/2013 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But that's essentially everything, since everything is  
(presumably) quantum.  But notice the limitation of quantum  
computers, if it has N qubits it takes 2^N complex numbers  
to specify its state, BUT you can only retrieve N bits of  
information from it (c.f. Holevo's theorem).  So it doesn't  
really act like 2^N parallel computers.



OK, but nobody pretended the contrary.  You can still extract  
N bits depending on the 2^N results, by doing some Fourier  
transfrom on all results obtained in "parallel universes".  
This means that the 2^N computations have to occur in *some*  
sense.


But they pretend that the number 2^N is so large that it  
cannot exist in whole universe, much less in  
that   
little quantum computer and therefore there must be other  
worlds which contain these enormous number of bits.  What  
Holevo's theorem shows is the one can regard all those  
interference terms as mere calculation fictions in going from  
N bit inputs to N bit outputs.


Can such "calculation fictions" support conciousness?  That's  
the real question.  If they can, then you can't avoid many- 
worlds (or at least many minds).


Why is that "the real question"?  Saying yes to the doctor  
implies that a classical computer can support consciousness.


Because with computationalism, if a quantum computer runs the  
computations that support a mind, there would be many resulting  
conscious states, and first person views.


Of course that is assuming the very proposition you're arguing.


No, I am trying to show that given computationalism, there is  
nothing "fictional" about these computations. They would have  
very bit the same power to yield consciousness as the  
computations of a classical computer.  Do you disagree with this?


I'm not sure what you mean by "power";

"ability"

whether it means effectively or potentially?  I don't think  
consciousness (at least like ours) can occur except in the  
context of a quasi-classical world.


Each of the myriad of computations executed in the quantum  
computer can be seen as separate classical computations. I agree  
classical computation is what is behind consciousness, so if  
quantum computation is the superposition of many classical  
computations,


But that's a very questionable assumption.  If it were literally  
true then N qubits could do as much a 2^N classical computers, but  
they can't.


That does not follow. They can't because QM predicts that they  
can't interact, but the interference needs them to exist, in some  
physical non fictitious sense.


That's pretty funny coming from you, Bruno.  :-)


Hmm Only for those who believe that I or comp eliminates the  
physical reality. But comp eliminates only the primitive physical  
reality, and in that way, makes the physical more real and solid, as  
it emerges from quite solid laws (addition and multiplication of  
integers).






Without adding a selection principle, like a collapse, I don't see  
why self-aware creature in those branches would lost their  
consciousness.


The question is why are "they" not us.


Comp explains this completely. It is like in the WM-duplication. The  
guy in W will never understand why he is the guy in W. The guy in M  
will never understand why he is the guy in M. It is magical, but comp  
explains why it has to appear like that, unless we add more ad hoc  
magic.





We remain self-aware while the quantum computer factors a number, so  
we're self-aware creatures in the same branch.


But that branch is defined by the output base {0, 1} of the QC. But  
the QC do the computation in the {0', 1'} base, which are  
superposition of {0, 1}-realities. In that base we are distributed in  
many realities, that we cannot distinguish (unless the QC leaks to our  
environment). We are in the same infinities (say) of branches.
You know that a pure state is a superposition of infinitely many  
branches. QC just exploits this, thanks to the interference.









The "quantum computations" are not just classical computations  
being done in parallel because they have to interfere to produce  
an answer.


So you agree that they are computations in parallel.


Sure. I'm just doubtful they constitute "a world".


They need just to be enough real to run a computer. And they are as  
much world than our branch, or you are using some selection p

Re: What are wavefunctions?



On 31 Dec 2013, at 21:52, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/31/2013 1:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
A entire parallel universe as big as our own that you can never go  
to or even see is about as far from being local as you can get.


Differentiation/splitting of "universes" is a local phenomenon. It  
is not instantaneous at all.


In an EPR experiment if you imagine a forward light cone of  
entanglement issuing from Alice and another from Bob those are STL  
effects (aka local), but where the light cones start to overlap it  
is observed that there is more correlation than can be accounted for  
by a local variables at the EPR source.


In *one* world, not in the multiverse. See the not to bad explanation  
in well Everett original papers, or in Steve Price Everett FAQ.






That's sort of the definition of "influence".


I don't see any FTL influence.



So the split into different quasi-classical worlds didn't just start  
from Alice or from Bob, they had to split in a a correlated way.


I don't think so at all. We don't need any FTL influence in each  
branches of any wave, written in any base, describing the quantum  
teleportation.
An FTL is needed if we believe that some branch can disappear. If no  
branch disappear, we have the right partition, and in each (4)  
branches, the two supplementary classical bits that Alice send  
classically only informed Bob about his place in the multiverse.


Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: What are wavefunctions?



On 31 Dec 2013, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/31/2013 1:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 30 Dec 2013, at 20:00, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/30/2013 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But that's essentially everything, since everything is  
(presumably) quantum.  But notice the limitation of quantum  
computers, if it has N qubits it takes 2^N   
complex numbers to specify its state, BUT you can only retrieve  
N bits of information from it (c.f. Holevo's theorem).  So it  
doesn't really act like 2^N parallel computers.



OK, but nobody pretended the contrary.  You can still extract N  
bits depending on the 2^N results, by doing some Fourier  
transfrom on all results obtained in "parallel universes". This  
means that the 2^N computations have to occur in *some* sense.


But they pretend that the number 2^N is so large that it cannot  
exist in whole universe, much less in that little quantum computer  
and therefore there must be other worlds which contain these  
enormous number of bits.  What Holevo's theorem shows is the one  
can regard all those interference terms as mere calculation  
fictions in going from N bit inputs to N bit outputs.  It is  
conceptually no different than doing a calculation in ordinary  
probability theory: I start with some initial conditions and I  
introduce a probability distribution and compute a probability for  
some event.  In that intermediate step I introduced a continuous  
probability distribution which implies an *infinite* number of  
bits.  Nobody thinks this requires an infinite number of worlds.


Then you need to add some selection principle to QM. If QC works  
through QM, the "parallel" computation are done in our quasi- 
classical world as in any other branch, and this is tested by doing  
a Fourier Transform which required the computation do be done in  
some non fictitious way (or you are adding some non linear magic in  
QM at some place).


I don't understand your comment.  It is my point that the  
computations are done in our world via the interference of wave  
functions - which have to be in the same world in order to interfere.


Not sure that this makes sense to me. The wave is the"wave of  
universe", it evolves in a Hilbert Space, not in any world or branch.  
The term "world" is confusing here.




I take "worlds" to mean quasi-classical worlds and a quasi-classical  
world may be supported by many different quantum "worlds".  But in  
Deutsch's famous proposed experiment, a quantum AI computer after  
factoring some prime by Shor's algorithm may not be able to tell us  
anything more than the factors - because those factors comes out the  
same in almost all branches and hence correspond to the same quasi- 
classical world.



Because we manage to get the result in our quasi-classical world. Yet,  
we get an indirect information about what has been computed in the  
other branch. We can compute a predicate, which outputs 1 or 0, and  
decide, in our branch, to test if all output were identical or not.


Also with Deutsch quantum brain, the observer can know that he has  
seen a definite result in each branch, but can't remember which one.  
So he can test the presence of the alternate realities, but not much  
more (but still more) than with the usual two slits.


Then in arithmetic, the parallel realities existence is an elementary  
theorem of RA. So we expect the MW, and are happy that some physicists  
already confirm this when abandoning the collapse,  ...which is all  
absurd by itself, note.


Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The Nature of Truth



On 31 Dec 2013, at 21:09, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/31/2013 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

only rules to extract knowledge from assumed beliefs.



?
I answered "no" to your question. Knowledge is not extracted in any  
way from belief (assumed or not). knowledge *is* belief, when or in  
the world those beliefs are true, but this you can never know as  
such.


Since your theory to an infinite number of semi-classical worlds  
with different events (and even different physics) it seems that  
"true belief" is not a very useful concept.


It is, because by incompleteness, we will have that Bp & p (true  
belief) obeys a different logic (an epistemic intuitionist logic)   
despite G* knows that it is the same machine, having the same action.  
The machine just dont know that, although it can infer it from comp +  
a sort of faith in herself.





Every belief is going to have probability zero of being true.


neither Bp  nor Bp & p is a priori related to probability. For this  
you need []p -> <>p, which is ocrrect for Bp & p, though, and indeed a  
physics appears already there, but that is a sort of anomaly (which  
confirms what I took as an anomaly in Plotinus, but the machine agrees  
with him).
Now, Bp, when present in the nuances, gives the logic of the  
corresponding "certainty", so it is trivially a probability one. We  
need to extract the logic, and the probability different from 1 are  
handled by the mathematics, and is related to the Dp (not Bp). The  
probability bears on the accessible "worlds".




The interesting concept is the probability of future events relative  
to one's current state.


That's exactly why we need to go from Bp to Bp & Dt (or Bp & Dt & p,  
or actually Bp & p). This gives the relevant notion of relative  
consistency together with some temporal interpretation.


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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality


Dear Stephen,


On 31 Dec 2013, at 20:19, Stephen Paul King wrote:




I really do appreciate the details!


On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen   
wrote:

Liz,

Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is  
the universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results  
of the computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time.


So an external time dimension is required.

So imagine a universe with a time dimension and some space-less  
computations...I'll try.


This shouldn't be any harder than imagining Bruno's Turing  
machine computing everything...including space and time.


Space, time and physical things are not computed. They emerge in  
the view of "self-aware" Löbian machine, which exist in arithmetic.


But not all of arithmetic is computed by the UD,


OK. The UD, seen as a prover, proves only the "ExP(x)" truth, but of  
course it obeys itself to the whole of arithmetic, for example, it  
will never emulate a correct machine proving a false pi_1 statements  
(AxP(x)).




The notion of self-obedience, is that a form of self-reference?


Define 'self-obedience'.








so how can you be sure that this Lobian machine emerges?


Because the existence of some Löbian machine is a sigma_1 (even  
sigma_0) sentence, as his the existence of their finite piece of  
computational histories.


OK. Does this follow from Lowenheim-Skolem?



?
It follows from the sigma_1 completeness of RA.  (p -> Bp, for p  
sigma_1, is true for RA. It is not provable as RA is not Löbian).


(Lowenheim-Skolem is invoked to explain why arithmetic from inside can  
seem infinitely bigger than from outside, but this is not used here).









How does it emerge?


The UD, alias RA, emulates all machines.

I see this as true, but in the sense of a static representational  
model. There is no "action" involved!



Then RA would only describe the computations, not emulate them. But it  
does. "Action" is recognized by the machine inside. Actions and  
changes are defined and measure internally by machines *relatively* to  
universal numbers. Here comp generalized Special relativity, somehow.  
There is no absolute time, except, if we want see it in that way, in  
the 0, 1, 2, 3,  number sequence.










And if there is one, aren't there indefinitely many emerging?


Yes, there are infinitely many emerging, and that is why there is a  
global relative 1-indeterminacy on the whole UD*, or RA emulation.


Are you saying that the FPI obtains from the infinite number of  
"emergings"?



There are two notions of "emergence" used here. The emergence by the  
"theoremhood", like when saying that once God created the natural  
numbers and said "add & multiply", you can define the prime numbers  
and they emerge from all arithmetical relations definable in  
arithmetic. Then there is the FPI emergence, which is made of all  
finite union of the finite piece of the UD work. You can say that the  
FPI bears on all what emerge in the first sense, yes.






Does it have to be "global"?


Yes. like in step 7, we are confronted to the whole of UD* (or to the  
whole of the Sigma_1 truth).




I worry about this because it seems to assume a privileged observer  
that has the ability to simultaneously perceive all of the emergings.


He perceives only one "outcome" (like in the WM-duplication), selected  
among the infinities of possible computations emulated in RA.





I reject that "God's eye view".


The outer 3p God's view is given, in comp, by the arithmetical truth.  
It is a little and simple God, like in Plotinus. It is far simpler  
than the Noùs or than the Universal Soul.



Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The background to Edgar's book

2014-01-01 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Telmo Menezes 
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> > as a former ed-in-chief of a science magazine (Ion Exchange and
>> > Membranes) I
>> > know the difficulties one can run into if trying to get peer-review
>> > approval
>> > on "NEW" ideas that do not fit into the conventional scientific fabric
>> > of
>> > college courses. I was a risk-taker and provided space for several new
>> > ideas
>> > that made sens - to me. ('Let the readership decide and debate').
>>
>> It's interesting to read this. I agree that the current model of
>> peer-review leads to too much conservatism, and "me-too" papers are
>> much more likely to get approved than the ones with novel ideas. On
>> the other hand, there's only so much time to keep up with the
>> literature, so some amount of filtering is required.
>
>
> I see 2 problems: everybody wants to publish + the peer groups that control
> certain domains and their journals are too often specialized cowards, that
> have to make bread, and fear "losing face" for publishing something crackpot
> style, like those nonsense articles that get through the peer process into
> publication from time to time. But the only way for journals to become more
> robust and earn scientific merit beyond popularity contests is to allow the
> wrong to be read, expose to criticism, and to right the wrongs or point
> towards the open problems that were formulated.
>
> Everybody is expected to learn... But not scientific journals. And everybody
> smells the irony. This strangles debate and promotes much more dependency
> "journal x said blah, so that must be right". The focus shifts from the
> questions, the work on them, towards results. Reactions to novelty become
> "crackpot" by default, instead of sharpening scientific attitude of
> wrestling what somebody new might have to say.

I agree. Here I tend to think like an economist: people react to
incentives. If the system is behaving in a way that is not desirable,
it is maybe a good idea the take a look at the incentive system that's
in place.

You would assume that the goal of a journal is to become as relevant
as possible. The problem is that fighting for relevancy is risky. You
have to expose yourself to ridicule. If you don't, you will never be
relevant because you will only consider the safest, most decaffeinated
ideas. The problem is that this highly conservative strategy is great
to get tenure and grants. So the system encourage mediocrity, in a
way. Importantly, this is an anti-scientific stance, because it
introduces a specific bias. Honest scientists should thrive to be as
free from bias as possible (while realising that it is impossible to
be free from bias).

Another problem is premature specialisation. In some fields, like
medicine and experimental physics, specialisation makes a lot of
sense. Most of science does not involve the stakes of health care nor
the instrumentation complexities of a particle accelerator. But all
fields want to copy this tried-and-true path to respectability. It's a
cargo cult. And it doesn't work either.

I think science is like art: the best stuff is not done for money and
recognition. These things are purely by-products. We need to get rid
of the job mentality. There is incredible technological progress that
could be used to free humanity from labour, but this never seems to
happen. If people are free from labour, then they can pursue their
true interests: science, art, dog training, whatever... Unfortunately,
I think humanity is currently following the wrong path in many senses.
Instead of progress being made in releasing humanity from labour, the
void in work to be done created by new technology is filled with
bullshit jobs, and science is being contaminated with bullshit jobs
too.

Happy new year man (and everyone!)
Telmo.

>>
>>
>> Maybe the internet will eventually allow for better models, but then I
>> fear that it will turn into another form of a popularity contest.
>> Collective moderation tends to reward sensationalism and form over
>> substance
>
>
> Yeah, but I don't see a route out of this ossifying aspect of the journal
> landscape, as brilliant as many of the articles are that I see every month,
> with all these historic weights in its current form. I'll just work blogwise
> for now, and bet that time will filter the popularity contest and
> sensationalism. PGC
>
>>
>>
>> > Sometimes new ideas (versions?) do not fit into the 'reductionistic'
>> > conventional stuff of the Rosenesque MODEL content, limited to the
>> > already
>> > known inventory of science etc.
>>
>> I love to read the negative reviews that famous computer science
>> papers received:
>> http://www.fang.ece.ufl.edu/reject.html
>>
>> Since we've been talking about Turing:
>> "On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungs
>> Problem." This is a bizarre paper. It begins by defining a computing
>> device absolut

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On 31 Dec 2013, at 19:59, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear Bruno,

Is a 3p view necessarily an ontological primitive?

OF course: no. Only the one we assume at the start.

But an ontological primitive is arguably necessarily 3p in the
scientific explanation of the 1p, or on anything.

Bruno

If we follow Wheeler's reasoning there is no such thing!

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:

On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Jason,

Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations.

This is ambiguous, and I am not sure you are using the standard
sense of "computations".

The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are
conscious, is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as
explained in the other post.

Does it help you to answer "yes" or "no" to the doctor who propose
you an artificial brain simulating your brain or body at some level
of substitution?

Is the functioning of a brain Turing emulable, in your theory?

The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is
real and actually exists means it must be present.

It means *a* reality is present. *the* reality is the problem, what
we search, using this or that theories.

That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present
moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared
locus of reality, and that present moment is the only locus of
reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc.

In the first person view. Not necessarily in the 3p view, and it
should be better so, I think, to avoid solipsism and mono-dream.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: What are wavefunctions?

2014-01-01 Thread LizR

On 1 January 2014 21:34, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/31/2013 7:22 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 1 January 2014 13:54, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  Of course in Hilbert space there's no FTL because the system is just
>> one point and when a measurement is performed it projects the system ray
>> onto a mixture of subspaces; spacetime coordinates are just some labels.
>>
>
>  I thought there was no FTL in ordinary space, either? (I mean, none
> required for the MWI?)
>
> Right, but the state in Hilbert space is something like |x1 y1 z1 s1 x2 y2
> z2 s2> and when Alice measures s1 at (x1 y1 z1) then s2 is correlated at
> (x2 y2 z2).  As I understand it the MWI advocates say this isn't FTL
> because this is just selecting out one of infinitely many results |s1 s2>.
> But the 'selection' has to pair up the spins in a way that violates Bell's
> inequality.
>

If I understand correctly ... actually, let me just check if I do, before I
go any further, in case I'm talking out my arse. Which wouldn't be the
first time.

I assume we're talking about an EPR correlation here?

If yes, I've never understood how the MWI explains this. I've see it
explained with ASCII diagrams by Bill Taylor on the FOAR forum, and far be
it from me to quibble with Bill, but it never made sense to me. Somehow,
the various branches just join up correctly...

The only explanation I've come across that I really understand for EPR, and
that doesn't violate locality etc is the time symmetry one, where all
influences travel along the light cone, but are allowed to go either way in
time.

So although I quite like the MWI because of its ontological implications,
this is one point on which I am agnostic, because I don't understand the
explanation.

>
>
>  In fact, it's generally assumed to be very, very STL (unless light
>> itself is involved). At great distances from the laboratory, one imagines
>> that the superposition caused by whatever we might do to cats in boxes
>> would decay to the level of noise, and fail to spread any further.
>>
>>  That's an interesting viewpoint - but it's taking spacetime instead of
>> Hilbert space to be the arena.  If we take the cat, either alive or dead,
>> and shoot it off into space then, as a signal, it won't fall off as 1/r^2.
>>
>>  No, but it will travel STL!
>
>
> Sure.  I was just commenting on the idea that the entanglement has a kind
> of limited range because of 'background noise'.  An interesting idea,
> similar to one I've had that there is a smallest non-zero probability.
>
> But if you want to get FTL, that's possible if Alice and Bob are near
> opposite sides of our Hubble sphere when they do their measurements.  They
> are then already moving apart faster than c and will never be able to
> communicate - with each other, but we, in the middle will eventually
> receive reports from them so that we can confirm the violation of Bell's
> inequality.
>

Hmm, that's a good point. That would, however, fit in nicely with time
symmetry (which really needs a nice acronym, I'm not sure "TS" cuts it). I
tend to evangelise a bit on time symmetry, but only because everyone else
roundly ignores it, and it seems to me that it at least has potential.

-- 
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On 12/31/2013 7:22 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 13:54, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
wrote:

On 12/31/2013 3:24 PM, LizR wrote:

On 1 January 2014 12:05, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Mark A. Rubin

(Submitted on 14 Mar 2001 (v1
), last
revised 10 May 2001 (this version, v2))

Bell's theorem depends crucially on counterfactual reasoning, and is
mistakenly interpreted as ruling out a local explanation for the
correlations which can be observed between the results of
measurements
performed on spatially-separated quantum systems. But in fact the
Everett
interpretation of quantum mechanics, in the Heisenberg picture,
provides an
alternative local explanation for such correlations.
Measurement-type
interactions lead, not to many worlds but, rather, to many local
copies of
experimental systems and the observers who measure their properties.
Transformations of the Heisenberg-picture operators corresponding
to the
properties of these systems and observers, induced by measurement
interactions, "label" each copy and provide the mechanism which,
e.g.,
ensures that each copy of one of the observers in an EPRB or GHZM
experiment will only interact with the "correct" copy of the other
observer(s). The conceptual problem of nonlocality is thus replaced
with a
conceptual problem of proliferating labels, as correlated systems
and
observers undergo measurement-type interactions with
newly-encountered
objects and instruments; it is suggested that this problem may be
resolved
by considering quantum field theory rather than the quantum
mechanics of
particles.

Comments: 18 pages, no figures. Minor changes
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Journal reference: Found. Phys. Lett. 14 (2001) 301-322
Report number: WW-10184
Cite as:arXiv:quant-ph/0103079

just moves the problem from FTL signaling to FTL labeling.

Where is the FTL? I don't recall any suggestion that the "contagion" of
entangled
systems spreading themeselves in the MWI involves anything FTL.

Of course in Hilbert space there's no FTL because the system is just one
point and
when a measurement is performed it projects the system ray onto a mixture of
subspaces; spacetime coordinates are just some labels.

I thought there was no FTL in ordinary space, either? (I mean, none required
for the MWI?)

Right, but the state in Hilbert space is something like |x1 y1 z1 s1 x2 y2 z2 s2> and when
Alice measures s1 at (x1 y1 z1) then s2 is correlated at (x2 y2 z2). As I understand it
the MWI advocates say this isn't FTL because this is just selecting out one of infinitely
many results |s1 s2>. But the 'selection' has to pair up the spins in a way that violates
Bell's inequality.

In fact, it's generally assumed to be very, very STL (unless light itself is
involved). At great distances from the laboratory, one imagines that the
superposition caused by whatever we might do to cats in boxes would decay
to the
level of noise, and fail to spread any further.

That's an interesting viewpoint - but it's taking spacetime instead of
Hilbert space
to be the arena. If we take the cat, either alive or dead, and shoot it
off into
space then, as a signal, it won't fall off as 1/r^2.

No, but it will travel STL!

Sure. I was just commenting on the idea that the entanglement has a kind of limited range
because of 'background noise'. An interesting idea, similar to one I've had that there is
a smallest non-zero probability.

But if you want to get FTL, that's possible if Alice and Bob are near opposite sides of
our Hubble sphere when they do their measurements. They are then already moving apart
faster than c and will never be able to communicate - with each other, but we, in the
middle will eventually receive reports from them so that we can confirm the violation of
Bell's inequality.

Brent

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?