Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Samiya Illias]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Samiya Illias 
> wrote:
>
>> The Quran, Chapter 112
>> 
>> Say: He is Allah, the One! Allah, the eternally Besought of all! He
>> begetteth not nor was begotten. And there is none comparable unto Him.
>>
>> The God I worship is not part of creation but rather outside and
>> independent of creation. My God, Allah, The Deity is The One who
>> *conceived* the entire creation, *coded* the software, *executed* to
>> create the hardware, and *sustains* the program wholly and entirely.
>> Allah is independent of the program and all within it. Everything and
>> everyone within the program is dependent on the All-Knowing God for
>> everything.
>>
>
> That's fine, except that now we need a theory of Allah, because everything
> else is irrelevant under that model. In fact, you just renamed "everything"
> to "Allah". So what's your theory of Allah?
>

Allah: there is nothing comparable to Him‏
The Quran introduces us to the attributes of Allah, but does not describe
the form of Allah, and that is where we must stop if we are believers.  As
per Quran 112:4 there is nothing like Allah, thus a believer in the Quran
should not try to imagine or state what Allah is.

Quran 31:30 describes Allah as Al-Haq.

ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ الْحَقُّ وَأَنَّ مَا يَدْعُونَ مِن دُونِهِ
الْبَاطِلُ وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ الْعَلِيُّ الْكَبِيرُ

Al-Haq is among the many names or attributes of God. Though generally
translated as The Truth, the word al-Haq encompasses a range of meanings,
and as contrasted to baatil [falsehood], the primary signification the word
‘haq’ is  suitableness to the requirements of  wisdom, justice, right, or
rightness, truth, reality, or fact. The state, or quality, or property, of
being just, proper, right, correct. Lane’s Lexicon covers around six pages:
http://www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/lane/
Al-Haq is merely one of the aspects of Allah (God) who is much more than
any word or concept that we can imagine or relate to. This link has a list
of names/attributes mentioned in the Quran:
http://www.whyislam.org/god/names-and-attributes-of-allah/

Quran 17:85 informs us that:

وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الرُّوحِ قُلِ الرُّوحُ مِنْ أَمْرِ رَبِّي وَمَا
أُوتِيتُم مِّنَ الْعِلْمِ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا

We are informed by verse 17:85 that the Ar-Ruh, generally translated as
Spirit,  is the Command of God, and of it we have been given very little
knowledge. Thus, it would be erroneous to think that God is Spirit. With
reference to what was breathed into Mary, mother of Jesus, please see:
http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/10/virgin-birth.html

Quran 24:35 informs us that:

اللَّهُ نُورُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ مَثَلُ نُورِهِ كَمِشْكَاةٍ فِيهَا
مِصْبَاحٌ الْمِصْبَاحُ فِي زُجَاجَةٍ الزُّجَاجَةُ كَأَنَّهَا كَوْكَبٌ
دُرِّيٌّ يُوقَدُ مِن شَجَرَةٍ مُّبَارَكَةٍ زَيْتُونَةٍ لَّا شَرْقِيَّةٍ
وَلَا غَرْبِيَّةٍ يَكَادُ زَيْتُهَا يُضِيءُ وَلَوْ لَمْ تَمْسَسْهُ نَارٌ
نُّورٌ عَلَىٰ نُورٍ يَهْدِي اللَّهُ لِنُورِهِ مَن يَشَاءُ وَيَضْرِبُ
اللَّهُ الْأَمْثَالَ لِلنَّاسِ وَاللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ

The verse uses the term Nur to describe the presence of Allah in Samawaat
(Heavens/Skies) and Earth. The verse itself says that Allah is using
examples here for humans. Hence, the following are some of the terms as I
understand them:
Nur: light or something with similar properties which helps us see in the
dark
Glass: Nur is enclosed in Glass, an amorphous substance which we are very
familiar with on Earth, having the properties of transmitting, reflecting
and refracting light
Kawkab: the glass is likened to a Kawkab. The term ‘كَوْكَبٌ’  used in the
Quran seems to refer to objects which do not produce light, but shine due
to the light of another source. I think they are solid objects made from
sand/soil/clay, and have rocky features. Planets, asteroids, meteoroids and
comets, all fit in this description.  [
http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/08/kawakib-planets-comets-and-other-rocky.html]

The verse goes on to give an example of the external source of the Nur as
an olive, a blessed tree, whose oil almost glows forth even if not touched
by fire, hence a radiant, continuous source of Nur in the As-Samawaat (the
seven concentric skies) and Al-Ard (the Earth).
I understand the terms  لَّا شَرْقِيَّةٍ وَلَا غَرْبِيَّةٍ as 'not of the
two origins and not of the two endings' that is the source of Nur is
external to the first(this) and second(Hereafter) creation of السَّمَاوَاتِ
وَالْأَرْضِ. I've discussed the reasons in some detail at:
http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/08/guarding-sky.html
Allah can use examples as Allah knows everything.
However, we should not use examples for Allah, as we do not know, as Quran
 16:74 warns us:

فَلَا تَضْرِبُوا لِلَّهِ الْأَمْثَالَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنتُمْ لَا
تَعْلَمُونَ

Multiple 

Re: Non-locality and MWI

[Bruce Kellett]

On 26/04/2016 5:52 am, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:58 AM, Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:




I think you may have missed a salient feature of my little story
about mismatching. The point to which I wish to draw attention is
that Alice and Bob do not know that they are in an impossible
world until after they have compared their experimental notes. In
general, in order to do the matching in a way that will preserve
the quantum correlations, you have to know the probabilities of
the combined worlds in advance. But these probabilities can be
calculated only after Alice and Bob exchange notes.


What do you mean by "in advance"? There is no need to do any matching 
at all until you look at a patch of spacetime that is in the overlap 
of the future light cone of Alice's measurement and the future light 
cone of Bob's measurement; and at that point, of course information 
about what detector setting each one used can be available without 
violating locality.


That, of course, is the issue. How is that information available? It 
only becomes available when Alice and Bob exchange notes -- there is no 
external indication of that information before that time.



So you need to know the relative orientations and results in order
to calculate the probabilities required to get consistent
matchings, but these probabilities become available only after the
matching is complete. In other words, the model as proposed is
incoherent.


To do the matching, you only need the statistics of the fraction of 
copies of Alice that used each setting, and the fraction of copies of 
Bob that used each setting, which were determined at the time each one 
made their measurement.


The matching must be made separately for each copy of Alice and Bob. 
Overall statistics are relevant for matchings over repeated runs of the 
experiment, but not otherwise.


These fractions can depend arbitrarily on what rule each one used to 
pick their setting--for example, Alice could have used a deterministic 
pseudorandom algorithm in which case all copies of Alice will have 
chosen the same detector setting, or she could have used some 
independent quantum experiment (say, one involving radioactive decay) 
to choose her setting randomly with whatever probabilities she wanted, 
like 1/19 chance of setting 1, 5/19 chance of setting 2, and 13/19 
chance of setting 3, in which case those will be the fraction of 
copies of Alice that chose each of those settings. Regardless of what 
the fractions were for each of Alice and Bob individually, once you 
reach the first point in spacetime where the future light cones of 
their measurements overlap, that point *can* have access to each one's 
statistics without locality (though it doesn't necessarily have to, 
see below), and given that information


If that information is available. But in general it is not.

it's always possible to match them in a one-to-one way that gives the 
correct quantum statistics. Do you disagree with this, and if so which 
point?


Again, Alice and Bob might try to thwart such a scenario by
careful shielding of their apparatus and not communicating with
anyone. Once more, I don't think quantum mechanics can be stymied
by silence and lead shielding.


Well, if they have some ideal perfect shielding that perfectly 
prevents any information from getting to a given point in the overlap 
of the future light cones, then by definition the probabilities for 
physical events at that point in spacetime won't depend on what result 
each got, so there's no need to do any matching up of their 
measurement results at that point.


In which case their shielding has thwarted the quantum predictions. I 
give you odds of 10,000,000 to 1 that that does not happen -- the 
correlations predicted by QM will be observed whatever shielding 
precautions are taken


Similarly, in the idealized Schroedinger's cat thought-experiment 
where the inside of the box is perfectly shielded from leaking any 
information to the outside, there is no need to match up copies of the 
experimenter outside with copies of the cat inside, even if the 
experimenter is in the future light cone of the event of the cat 
having been saved/killed.


Schroedinger's cat is not a measurement on an entangled system of the 
requisite kind.


Only when there is some physical event C whose local probability 
depends on the results of both prior events A and B is there a need to 
do any matching--and by definition, such a physical event C must have 
had some nonzero probability of getting a "signal" from both 
measurement-events.


By definition!! Whose definition? That is just unphysical nonsense.

And in the many-worlds interpretation, C would actually be receiving a 
cluster of copies of different possible signals whose statistics would 
reflect the statistics of different measurement results.

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Telmo Menezes]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

> The Quran, Chapter 112
> 
> Say: He is Allah, the One! Allah, the eternally Besought of all! He
> begetteth not nor was begotten. And there is none comparable unto Him.
>
> The God I worship is not part of creation but rather outside and
> independent of creation. My God, Allah, The Deity is The One who
> *conceived* the entire creation, *coded* the software, *executed* to
> create the hardware, and *sustains* the program wholly and entirely.
> Allah is independent of the program and all within it. Everything and
> everyone within the program is dependent on the All-Knowing God for
> everything.
>

That's fine, except that now we need a theory of Allah, because everything
else is irrelevant under that model. In fact, you just renamed "everything"
to "Allah". So what's your theory of Allah?

Cheers
Telmo.


>
> I worship not that which you worship, nor worship you that which I
> worship! Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.
> 
>
> Samiya
>
>

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

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Samiya Illias]

The Quran, Chapter 112

Say: He is Allah, the One! Allah, the eternally Besought of all! He
begetteth not nor was begotten. And there is none comparable unto Him.

The God I worship is not part of creation but rather outside and
independent of creation. My God, Allah, The Deity is The One who *conceived*
the entire creation, *coded* the software, *executed* to create the
hardware, and *sustains* the program wholly and entirely. Allah is
independent of the program and all within it. Everything and everyone
within the program is dependent on the All-Knowing God for everything.

I worship not that which you worship, nor worship you that which I worship!
Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.

Samiya

On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 24 Apr 2016, at 05:19, Samiya Illias wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Telmo Menezes 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Samiya,
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 5:30 AM, Samiya Illias 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you Telmo for your kind words. Appreciate it!
>>>
>>> You ask 'please respect mine' - I do not know what your faith and
>>> beliefs are, and if I have unknowingly shown any disrespect, I apologise to
>>> you for it and pray to Allah for forgiveness.
>>>
>>
>> No need for apologies (well I don't know about Allah, but I'm cool). What
>> I mean is this: we have a mailing list dedicated to theories of everything.
>>
>
> Scripture is essentially a Theory of Everything!
>
>
> I agree.
>
> Yet, to be franc, a rather naive one, which takes for granted a lot of
> infinities, and a problem with the big One that we cannot name.
>
> In mathematics, we get approximation of sort of "everything theory", like
> Set theory (in which you can formalize very big part of mathematics. yet,
> we know that we cannot formalize completely even just the arithmetical
> reality. It transcend us, and provably so assuming we are correct
> machine/program/number.
>
>
>
>
>> It seems to be polite to discuss topics that can be communicated, that
>> can have some hope of being meaningful to the audience.
>>
>
> I think I mostly write in response to questions raised. I cite and quote
> the Quran so that everyone knows the original source and can check for
> themselves.
>
>
> I did, but, the validity worked also with judaism, christianism, and even
> neoplatonisme, and my new favorite one, neopythagoreanism (Moderatus de
> Gades).
>
> Then you made not the statistics right all the time, and argue like those
> who say that cannabis leads to heroin (the most common error, if not
> propaganda technic, to build scapegoats. I refer to older conversations).
>
>
>
>
>
> Suppose I started writing emails every day describing my dreams in
>> excruciating detail, citing from things that happened in them and how they
>> affected me.
>>
>
>>
>>>
>>> I do not ask anyone to believe the Quran to be among the divinely
>>> revealed scriptures because of my faith in it. Rather, I attempt to show
>>> that it is a factually accurate text (
>>> http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/ ) and thus must be taken
>>> seriously!
>>>
>>
>> You are suffering from an extreme case of confirmation bias. When you
>> arrive at the conclusion that the Quran is compatible with modern science,
>> you fail to take into account the probability of your interpretation of
>> each sentence being the one that the author had in mind.
>>
>
> Of course, I can be wrong, but I also can be right. How would you know if
> you refuse you verify for yourself?
>
>
> The Quran is a poem. The bible(s) too. The texts are written by humans,
> and are allegory of their experiences.
>
> Any machine looking inward, and remaining sound in the process, cannot
> avoid grasping the nature of what they can't grasp, and they can discovered
> that those things which extends their mean of justification obeys laws, etc.
>
> Those who meet God, or those who drink the Glass of Milk, will NVER say
> so, as they know that whatever they could say after that is implicitly
> referring to the worst argument of authority ever.
>
> I made the verification, but it works also for the bible, and even for
> Alice in Wonderland. I can argue that Lewis Carroll has anticipated the
> whole science  which has succeeded him, (including Gödel and Löb, but also
> Einstein and Schroedinger and even Bell) and he, at least, did not fall in
> the trap of the authoritative argument (although he did fall in it in
> "Sylvie and Bruno" though!).
>
> Yes, some people intuit the big picture, and get variate mystical
> experience. To me, the understanding that some equation have no solutions,
> like 2(x^2) = y^2, is already a (small) mystical experience.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> There are interpretations of the Quran that indicate that the Quran says
>> that the earth is flat.
>>
>
> Well, the Arabic word 

Re: Non-locality and MWI

[Jesse Mazer]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:58 AM, Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

>
>
> I think you may have missed a salient feature of my little story about
> mismatching. The point to which I wish to draw attention is that Alice and
> Bob do not know that they are in an impossible world until after they have
> compared their experimental notes. In general, in order to do the matching
> in a way that will preserve the quantum correlations, you have to know the
> probabilities of the combined worlds in advance. But these probabilities
> can be calculated only after Alice and Bob exchange notes.
>

What do you mean by "in advance"? There is no need to do any matching at
all until you look at a patch of spacetime that is in the overlap of the
future light cone of Alice's measurement and the future light cone of Bob's
measurement; and at that point, of course information about what detector
setting each one used can be available without violating locality.


>
> So you need to know the relative orientations and results in order to
> calculate the probabilities required to get consistent matchings, but these
> probabilities become available only after the matching is complete. In
> other words, the model as proposed is incoherent.
>

To do the matching, you only need the statistics of the fraction of copies
of Alice that used each setting, and the fraction of copies of Bob that
used each setting, which were determined at the time each one made their
measurement. These fractions can depend arbitrarily on what rule each one
used to pick their setting--for example, Alice could have used a
deterministic pseudorandom algorithm in which case all copies of Alice will
have chosen the same detector setting, or she could have used some
independent quantum experiment (say, one involving radioactive decay) to
choose her setting randomly with whatever probabilities she wanted, like
1/19 chance of setting 1, 5/19 chance of setting 2, and 13/19 chance of
setting 3, in which case those will be the fraction of copies of Alice that
chose each of those settings. Regardless of what the fractions were for
each of Alice and Bob individually, once you reach the first point in
spacetime where the future light cones of their measurements overlap, that
point *can* have access to each one's statistics without locality (though
it doesn't necessarily have to, see below), and given that information it's
always possible to match them in a one-to-one way that gives the correct
quantum statistics. Do you disagree with this, and if so which point?


>
> Again, Alice and Bob might try to thwart such a scenario by careful
> shielding of their apparatus and not communicating with anyone. Once more,
> I don't think quantum mechanics can be stymied by silence and lead
> shielding.
>

Well, if they have some ideal perfect shielding that perfectly prevents any
information from getting to a given point in the overlap of the future
light cones, then by definition the probabilities for physical events at
that point in spacetime won't depend on what result each got, so there's no
need to do any matching up of their measurement results at that point.
Similarly, in the idealized Schroedinger's cat thought-experiment where the
inside of the box is perfectly shielded from leaking any information to the
outside, there is no need to match up copies of the experimenter outside
with copies of the cat inside, even if the experimenter is in the future
light cone of the event of the cat having been saved/killed. Only when
there is some physical event C whose local probability depends on the
results of both prior events A and B is there a need to do any
matching--and by definition, such a physical event C must have had some
nonzero probability of getting a "signal" from both measurement-events. And
in the many-worlds interpretation, C would actually be receiving a cluster
of copies of different possible signals whose statistics would reflect the
statistics of different measurement results.



>
> The real problem is that any theory which enables the gathering of such
> information from the results of environmental decoherence would have to
> involve radically new physics, of a kind that has never been seen before.
> This would have to be universal physics -- we can't just dream up an ad hoc
> theory that applies only to the correlations of entangled particles!
>


You still haven't given a clear answer the basic question I've been
persistently asking you about: do you claim there is any airtight argument,
akin to Bell's theorem (or perhaps based on Bell's theorem itself), which
would allow us to prove mathematically it's not *possible* to come up with
a local theory of copies and matching which is "general" in the sense of
reproducing the correct quantum predictions for *arbitrary* experiments? Or
are you just skeptical/incredulous based on your personal intuitions about
what such a theory would need to look like, without claiming it's possible
to rule out 

Re: Non-locality and MWI

[Bruce Kellett]

Jesse,
Rather than making a detailed response to your points -- which would 
take us rather too far off the track -- I will make a short argument.


I think you may have missed a salient feature of my little story about 
mismatching. The point to which I wish to draw attention is that Alice 
and Bob do not know that they are in an impossible world until after 
they have compared their experimental notes. In general, in order to do 
the matching in a way that will preserve the quantum correlations, you 
have to know the probabilities of the combined worlds in advance. But 
these probabilities can be calculated only after Alice and Bob exchange 
notes.


So you need to know the relative orientations and results in order to 
calculate the probabilities required to get consistent matchings, but 
these probabilities become available only after the matching is 
complete. In other words, the model as proposed is incoherent.


You might try to get around this by saying that you can garner the 
results from both Alice and Bob before they meet up. You can't do this 
by asking them -- who does the asking? And they might refuse to 
cooperate. Individuals can't stymie quantum mechanics simply be being 
uncooperative! Alternatively, you might argue that the experiments 
performed by Alice and Bob have completely decohered, and the coherence 
phases have been distributed through the environment. Maybe the relevant 
information can be recovered from the effects of decoherence into the 
environment? I don't fancy your chances here either.


Again, Alice and Bob might try to thwart such a scenario by careful 
shielding of their apparatus and not communicating with anyone. Once 
more, I don't think quantum mechanics can be stymied by silence and lead 
shielding.


The real problem is that any theory which enables the gathering of such 
information from the results of environmental decoherence would have to 
involve radically new physics, of a kind that has never been seen 
before. This would have to be universal physics -- we can't just dream 
up an ad hoc theory that applies only to the correlations of entangled 
particles! Whatever the nature of this new theory, it would by in 
addition to quantum mechanics, so you will not have solved the problem 
of non-locality in quantum mechanics, you will have abandoned quantum 
mechanics in favour of your new theory.


Bruce





On 23/04/2016 3:21 am, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:


On 22/04/2016 2:46 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote:

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Bruce Kellett
> wrote:

On 22/04/2016 12:53 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote:

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Bruce Kellett
> wrote:



The point here is that some combinations of results are
forbidden. How can this happen?


By the appropriate matching rules for locally-generated
copies in different locations, as in my toy model. There's
no reason you can't have something similar in a more general
model, which I think is exactly what people like Rubin are
presenting.


The best I can make of this is that you have some theory that
is not quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics does not give any
such "matching rules"


It's important to distinguish between theories of physics and the
mathematical models used to express them--a physical theory is
defined entirely by the predictions about observable outcomes,
not any elements of the model that are not directly measurable
even in principle. For example, curved spacetime is not essential
to general relativity as a theory, though it is a feature of the
most commonly-used mathematical model (there is an alternate
formulation that only uses flat spacetime, but has a field
defined on this spacetime which varies the length of rulers and
the ticking rate of clocks at different points in the spacetime,
and physicists would still call this 'general relativity').
Likewise, a state vector in Hilbert space is not essential to
quantum mechanics as a theory. And if one *could* come up with a
model involving "matching rules" that would be equivalent in its
predictions about observable measurement results as the existing
mathematical models, this would merely be a new mathematical
model for the same physical theory.


It would seem that you are not a physicist! What you claim here
about physics is actually quite contentious. It seems to
constitute an extreme form of instrumentalism.



I don't think that's the case, I'm basically just talking about how 
physicists *define* the physical content of a theory. But it would 
help if you would define what you mean by