Re: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/25/2018 7:44 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 2:17:31 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 4/25/2018 6:39 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:


*On its face it's absurd to think the SoL is invariant for all
observers regardless of the relative motion of source and
recipient, but it has testable consequences. The MWI has no
testable consequences, so it makes no sense to omit this key
difference in your historical comparisons with other apparent
absurdities in physics. Moreover when you factor into
consideration that non locality persists in the many worlds
postulated -- assuming you accept Bruce's analysis -- what
exactly has been gained by asserting the MWI? Nothing as far as I
can tell. And the loss is significant as any false path would be. AG*


It's one possible answer to the question of where the Heisenberg
cut is located (the other is QBism).  It led to the theory of
decoherence and Zurek's theory of quantum Darwinism which may
explain Born's rule.

Brent

*
I've always found the Heisenberg Cut to be a nebulous concept, a kind 
of hypothetical demarcation between the quantum and classical worlds. *


That's the problem with it; it doesn't have an objective physical 
definition.  Bohr regarded it as a choice in analyzing an experiment; 
you put it where ever was convenient.


*What kind of boundary are we talking about, and how could the MWI 
shed any light on it, whatever it is? AG *


In MWI there is no Heisenberg cut; instead there's a splitting of worlds 
which has some objective location in terms of decoherence.


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

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 2:17:31 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/25/2018 6:39 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
> *On its face it's absurd to think the SoL is invariant for all observers 
> regardless of the relative motion of source and recipient, but it has 
> testable consequences. The MWI has no testable consequences, so it makes no 
> sense to omit this key difference in your historical comparisons with other 
> apparent absurdities in physics. Moreover when you factor into 
> consideration that non locality persists in the many worlds postulated -- 
> assuming you accept Bruce's analysis -- what exactly has been gained by 
> asserting the MWI? Nothing as far as I can tell. And the loss is 
> significant as any false path would be. AG*
>
>
> It's one possible answer to the question of where the Heisenberg cut is 
> located (the other is QBism).  It led to the theory of decoherence and 
> Zurek's theory of quantum Darwinism which may explain Born's rule.
>
> Brent
>

*I've always found the Heisenberg Cut to be a nebulous concept, a kind of 
hypothetical demarcation between the quantum and classical worlds. What 
kind of boundary are we talking about, and how could the MWI shed any light 
on it, whatever it is? AG *

-- 
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: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/25/2018 6:39 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:


*On its face it's absurd to think the SoL is invariant for all 
observers regardless of the relative motion of source and recipient, 
but it has testable consequences. The MWI has no testable 
consequences, so it makes no sense to omit this key difference in your 
historical comparisons with other apparent absurdities in physics. 
Moreover when you factor into consideration that non locality persists 
in the many worlds postulated -- assuming you accept Bruce's analysis 
-- what exactly has been gained by asserting the MWI? Nothing as far 
as I can tell. And the loss is significant as any false path would be. AG*


It's one possible answer to the question of where the Heisenberg cut is 
located (the other is QBism).  It led to the theory of decoherence and 
Zurek's theory of quantum Darwinism which may explain Born's rule.


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

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 11:55:34 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 4:11:57 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 12:26 PM,  wrote:
>>
>>> *> the MW advocates (Clark, Smitra, et al) who are comfortable ignoring 
>>> the obvious absurdity of the need for creating multiple observers with 
>>> identical memories,*
>>
>>  
>> Historically the argument from personal incredulity has proven to be a 
>> very poor way to figure out how the world works.
>>
>
*On its face it's absurd to think the SoL is invariant for all observers 
regardless of the relative motion of source and recipient, but it has 
testable consequences. The MWI has no testable consequences, so it makes no 
sense to omit this key difference in your historical comparisons with other 
apparent absurdities in physics. Moreover when you factor into 
consideration that non locality persists in the many worlds postulated -- 
assuming you accept Bruce's analysis -- what exactly has been gained by 
asserting the MWI? Nothing as far as I can tell. And the loss is 
significant as any false path would be. AG*
 

> It’s absurd to think that the Earth moves and yet it does. It’s absurd to 
>> thing that random mutation and natural selection could produce any thing as 
>> grand as a living animal much less a human being and yet it does. In his 
>> EPR paper Einstein showed that if existing quantum mechanics was complete 
>> then absurd things would result and therefore quantum mechanics can’t be 
>> complete. But years later Bell showed how a experiment to test this could 
>> be set up and a few years after that Aspect actually did the difficult 
>> experiment and it turns out that the absurd result that Einstein laughed 
>> about actually occurs in the real world. 
>>
>
> As I see it, the collapse models are hugely LESS ornate than the MWI. Even 
> one copy of an observer with same history as "original" observer is too 
> much for me. Not to mention how easily these copies are created, and non 
> locality prevails in these other universes. I don't buy it. AG  
>
>>
>> Perhaps the problem is with the name, in a Reductio ad absurdum proof it 
>> is not good enough to show that the result is odd or even absurd, you’ve 
>> got to show it is logically self contradictory.
>>
>> > this being a clear case of "the cure" (for collapse) being worse than 
>>> the disease. 
>>
>> In this case the disease is the moon doesn’t exist when I’m not looking 
>> at it, yes Many Worlds is absurd but not as absurd as that, but I admit 
>> that is just my opinion and the universe may disagree. Whatever is true one 
>> thing is certain, the universe is absurd. 
>>
>> John K Clark 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

-- 
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: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 4:11:57 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 12:26 PM, > 
> wrote:
>
>> *> the MW advocates (Clark, Smitra, et al) who are comfortable ignoring 
>> the obvious absurdity of the need for creating multiple observers with 
>> identical memories,*
>
>  
> Historically the argument from personal incredulity has proven to be a 
> very poor way to figure out how the world works. It’s absurd to think that 
> the Earth moves and yet it does. It’s absurd to thing that random mutation 
> and natural selection could produce any thing as grand as a living animal 
> much less a human being and yet it does. In his EPR paper Einstein showed 
> that if existing quantum mechanics was complete then absurd things would 
> result and therefore quantum mechanics can’t be complete. But years later 
> Bell showed how a experiment to test this could be set up and a few years 
> after that Aspect actually did the difficult experiment and it turns out 
> that the absurd result that Einstein laughed about actually occurs in the 
> real world. 
>

As I see it, the collapse models are hugely LESS ornate than the MWI. Even 
one copy of an observer with same history as "original" observer is too 
much for me. Not to mention how easily these copies are created, and non 
locality prevails in these other universes. I don't buy it. AG  

>
> Perhaps the problem is with the name, in a Reductio ad absurdum proof it 
> is not good enough to show that the result is odd or even absurd, you’ve 
> got to show it is logically self contradictory.
>
> > this being a clear case of "the cure" (for collapse) being worse than 
>> the disease. 
>
> In this case the disease is the moon doesn’t exist when I’m not looking at 
> it, yes Many Worlds is absurd but not as absurd as that, but I admit that 
> is just my opinion and the universe may disagree. Whatever is true one 
> thing is certain, the universe is absurd. 
>
> John K Clark 
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 9:48:44 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/25/2018 12:09 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote: 
> > Did you not read Bruce's example of a entanglement which didn't imply 
> > non locality? It was classical elastic scattering where there was no 
> > uncertainty in momentum. How is this different from the singlet case 
> > with no uncertainty in momentum, yet we have non locality? AG 
>
> It's different because in the singlet case the individual particles do 
> not have any well defined spin direction before measurement.  So the 
> measurement of one makes the whole wave function change, aka "collapse", 
> even at the other distant measurement. 
>
> Brent 
>

Right. I thought that might make a difference BTW, the link you gave me on 
tensors
is real good, goes into details unlike other treatments I have seen, and 
part of a course
with many chapters.  AG

-- 
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: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/25/2018 12:09 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
Did you not read Bruce's example of a entanglement which didn't imply 
non locality? It was classical elastic scattering where there was no 
uncertainty in momentum. How is this different from the singlet case 
with no uncertainty in momentum, yet we have non locality? AG 


It's different because in the singlet case the individual particles do 
not have any well defined spin direction before measurement.  So the 
measurement of one makes the whole wave function change, aka "collapse", 
even at the other distant measurement.


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

Re: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/25/2018 6:57 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 10:51:13 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: *Bruno Marchal* >

On 22 Apr 2018, at 01:47, Bruce Kellett > wrote:

From: *smitra* >


On 22-04-2018 00:18, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/21/2018 12:42 PM, smitra wrote:


That's then an artifact of invoking an effective
collapse of the wavefunction due to introducing the
observer. The correlated two particle state is either
put in by hand or one has shown how it was created. In
the former case one is introducing non-local effects in
an ad-hoc way in a theory that only has local
interactions, so there is then nothing to explain in
that case. In the latter case, the entangled state
itself results from the local dynamics, one can put
ALice and Bob at far away locations there and wait
until the two particles arrive at their locations. The
way the state vectors of the entire system that now
also includes the state vectors of Alice and Bob
themselves evolve, has no nontrivial non-local effects
in them at all.


Sure it does.  The state vector itself is a function of
spacelike
separate events, which cause it to evolve into orthogonal
components...whose statistics violated Bell's inequality.

Brent


There is no non-locality implied here unless you assume that
the dynamics as predicted by QM is the result of a local hidden
variables theory.

Saibal


There is no need to suggest local (or non-local) hidden
variables. The non-locality we are talking about is implied by
the quantum state itself -- nothing to do with the dynamics.



But that type of non-locality has never been questioned, neither
in the MWI, or a fortiori in QM+collapse. But the MWI explains
without the need of “mysterious” influence-at-a-distance, which
would be the case in the mono-universe theory, or in Bohm-De
Broglie pilot wave theory. Without dynamic we have “only”
d’Espagnat type of inseparability.

Bruno


It seems that you are starting to see it from my perspective.
Non-locality is just another way of emphasizing the
non-separablity of the quantum singlet state. As you say, this is
true in MWI as in collapse theories. In my extended development of
the mathematics in another recent post, I demonstrated that there
is actually no difference between MWI and CI in this regard. All
that we have is the non-separability of the state, which means
that a measurement on one particle affects the result of
measurements on the other -- they are inseparable. This is all
that non-locality means, and this is not changed by MWI. An awful
lot of nonsense has been talked about this -- people trying to
find a "mechanism" for the inseparability -- but that is not
necessary. Quantum theory requires it, and it has been totally
vindicated by experiment. That is the way things are, in one world
or many.

Bruce


You place great faith in the singlet wf. But how can you legitimately 
treat the system quantum mechanically if you assume zero uncertainty 
in the total spin AM? AG


Zero spin is insured by conservation of angular momentum.  There are 
limitations imposed on the measurement by the uncertainty principle as 
shown by the WAY theorem, but the constraint isn't of practical 
significance for typical laboratory measurement because the apparatus is 
so big (in action) compared to the variable measured:


In 1952 Wigner [2 
] 
provided analysis that showed that in the presence of a conservation law 
it is impossible to perform an ideal measurement of an observable/L/_/S/ 
that does not commute with the conserved quantity. Specifically, Wigner 
showed that if one has an additive conservation law of some 
quantity$N_{\mathrm{tot}}= N_S\otimes \mathbbm{1} + \mathbbm{1} \otimes 
N_{\mathrm {A}}$ over the composite system (such as angular momentum or 
baryon number), and an observable/L/_/S/ for which [/L/_/S/ ,/N/_/S/ 
] ≠ 0, then there cannot exist a von Neumann–Lüders measurement that 
respects the conservation law with$[V,N_{\mathrm{tot}}]=0$ . *Wigner 
demonstrated, however, that an/approximate/**measurement 
of**/L/**_/S/ **can be performed, with the error decreasing as a 
function of the size of the apparatus system.


*http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/15/1/013057/meta**

**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

Re: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/25/2018 4:09 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Deutsch tries to answer the case by showing that information transfer 
is everywhere local. That is fine, because that was never in dispute. 
He does not seem to realize that it is the non-separability of the 
wave-function, not information transfer, that lies at the heart of the 
issue, and he simply did not address the real source of the 
non-locality; which is that the wave-function itself vanishes for 
combinations of worlds that violate angular momentum conservation. It 
is a property of the wave-function, not a property of the number of 
"worlds" you consider, or the way information is conveyed between 
experimenters.


But it also depends on the fact that the wave-function does not encode 
any specific angular momentum for the particles (no local hidden 
variables), so when a definite value, UP or DOWN, value is found by 
Alice this definiteness of value is entailed at Bob.


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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/25/2018 3:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
G proves that (p <-> ~ []p) is equivalent with (p <-> <>t), or 
equivalently (p <-> ~[]f). So consistency (<>t) is a solution to the 
(logical) equation x <-> ~[]x.


?? What does this proof look like?  Why doesn't it prove f <->~[]f ?

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

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 5:59:50 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 5:48:10 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 8:57:16 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 10:51:13 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:

 From: Bruno Marchal 

 On 22 Apr 2018, at 01:47, Bruce Kellett  
 wrote:

 From: smitra 


 On 22-04-2018 00:18, Brent Meeker wrote:

> On 4/21/2018 12:42 PM, smitra wrote:
>
>>
>> That's then an artifact of invoking an effective collapse of the 
>> wavefunction due to introducing the observer. The correlated two 
>> particle 
>> state is either put in by hand or one has shown how it was created. In 
>> the 
>> former case one is introducing non-local effects in an ad-hoc way in a 
>> theory that only has local interactions, so there is then nothing to 
>> explain in that case. In the latter case, the entangled state itself 
>> results from the local dynamics, one can put ALice and Bob at far away 
>> locations there and wait until the two particles arrive at their 
>> locations. 
>> The way the state vectors of the entire system that now also includes 
>> the 
>> state vectors of Alice and Bob themselves evolve, has no nontrivial 
>> non-local effects in them at all.
>>
>
> Sure it does.  The state vector itself is a function of spacelike
> separate events, which cause it to evolve into orthogonal
> components...whose statistics violated Bell's inequality.
>
> Brent
>

 There is no non-locality implied here unless you assume that the 
 dynamics as predicted by QM is the result of a local hidden variables 
 theory.

 Saibal


 There is no need to suggest local (or non-local) hidden variables. The 
 non-locality we are talking about is implied by the quantum state itself 
 -- 
 nothing to do with the dynamics.



 But that type of non-locality has never been questioned, neither in the 
 MWI, or a fortiori in QM+collapse. But the MWI explains without the need 
 of 
 “mysterious” influence-at-a-distance, which would be the case in the 
 mono-universe theory, or in Bohm-De Broglie pilot wave theory. Without 
 dynamic we have “only” d’Espagnat type of inseparability.

 Bruno


 It seems that you are starting to see it from my perspective. 
 Non-locality is just another way of emphasizing the non-separablity of the 
 quantum singlet state. As you say, this is true in MWI as in collapse 
 theories. In my extended development of the mathematics in another recent 
 post, I demonstrated that there is actually no difference between MWI and 
 CI in this regard. All that we have is the non-separability of the state, 
 which means that a measurement on one particle affects the result of 
 measurements on the other -- they are inseparable. This is all that 
 non-locality means, and this is not changed by MWI. An awful lot of 
 nonsense has been talked about this -- people trying to find a "mechanism" 
 for the inseparability -- but that is not necessary. Quantum theory 
 requires it, and it has been totally vindicated by experiment. That is the 
 way things are, in one world or many.

 Bruce

>>>
>>> You place great faith in the singlet wf. But how can you legitimately 
>>> treat the system quantum mechanically if you assume zero uncertainty in the 
>>> total spin AM? AG
>>>
>>
>> Ah yes, but far greater fun is found in the triplet state!
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> Am I to assume you don't have a substantive answer with so much at stake? 
> AG 
>

Did you not read Bruce's example of a entanglement which didn't imply non 
locality? It was classical elastic scattering where there was no 
uncertainty in momentum. How is this different from the singlet case with 
no uncertainty in momentum, yet we have non locality? AG 

-- 
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: Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/25/2018 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The answer is that if a belief comes from reason, it might still be 
false. The belief that fact is earth was due to reason based on local 
extrapolation. Reason build theories, but later, reason + new evidence 
can show old theories to be wrong. So, when applying a theory, we need 
some faith.


When it's based on evidence, it's not faith.

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/25/2018 2:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:29, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Science is never a question of agreement or disagreement, but of 
understanding or finding a mistake, internal or external (vis-àb-vis 
facts).


That's simplisitc.  You commonly refer to agreement of beliefs, as in 
"Do you believe 2+2=4?"  Science is only possible because people can 
agree on facts.  The account of how Alfred Russell Wallace tried to 
prove that the Earth is round to the head of the Flat Earth Society 
is a cautionary tale about that.


Only when we bet that there is reality, which is science only when 
metaphysics is done with the scientific method, but the scientist will 
not start with “do you believe that 2+2=4”. He will give some axioms, like


0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

And make reasoning from that, without addressing question of belief. 
For example, if someone say that he disagrees with the third axioms, 
the teacher, say, will say to wait when they will study an 
axiomatisation of all integers, but that today they axiomatise only 
the non negative integers.


Now, we can agree or disagree on the applicability of a theory, when 
used informally. But in “serious theology”, we use the axiomatic 
method, and there is no disagreement possible, as when you do theology 
scientifically, your own private opinion in the matter is kept silent.


The contemporary disagreement in theology just comes the fact that 
since 1500 years, we are just not allowed to use reason and methodical 
verification in that field. We tolerate the argument of authority 
since long, or we have no choice, or become dissident, etc.


But a scientific theory does not consist of axioms alone (or even 
mostly).  It must also include interpretations to connect it to 
observation.  So it is literally meaningless to say you have derived 
science by an axiomatic method.


Brent



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


--
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.


--
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: Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/25/2018 2:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:24, Brent Meeker  wrote:



On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

But religion, when understood, make you love all humans and non humans.

That's all the true Scotsman fallacy.

Not at all. There is a reason why religion (well understood)


To insert "well understood" is just to repeat the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Brent


makes people recognising themselves into the other, cutting jealousy at the 
root, for example. But you are partially right, as this belong to G* minus G.

Bruno


--
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: Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/25/2018 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:14, Brent Meeker  wrote:



On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

The problem is that when people oppose science and religion, they tend to 
forget that “Primary matter” is also a “religion”, and eventually they take a 
religion for granted without knowing.

You keep saying that, but it's just smearing your philosophical opponents.  
Just because Patricia Churchland or Daniel Dennett and Anil Seth think material 
processes can explain consciousness doesn't mean they think matter is primary, 
or even have the concept of primary matter.

What would be their alternate primitive notions?


I don't know.  Why should they agree on one.  Maybe they have different 
ideas or consider it an unanswered question.  If I explain that my car 
gets energy from burning gasoline are you going to complain that I 
haven't said what my primitive notion is?








They are generally referring to matter like brains and computers which are many 
levels of composition above quarks, electrons, or strings.

But they believe that those electron exist primitively, or are composed of 
things existing primitively.


Maybe.  You believe numbers exist primitively.  So what?  It hasn't 
helped you explain quarks and electrons.




And every one of them would instantly reject the idea of worshiping matter or 
deriving moral precepts from the Standard Model.

Yes. But we discuss in the metaphysical or theological science. Denote even say 
that physics has no conceptual problem, and his own theory assumed brain. Not 
that brain could be a number illusion or comes from anything non material.




So "the problem" is in your imagination.  You complain of fundamentalism; but 
you adopt a fundamentalism of computation.

Not at all. I do not even claim that mechanism is true. Only :

1) that mechanism entails Theology of Plato and refute the theology of 
Aristotle (the belief in primary matter, or the confusion between primary 
matter and matter).


But it doesn't actually to that.  At best it makes primary matter 
otiose, and it does so at the cost of making many things exist for which 
there is no evidence.




2) as mechanism entails a quantum many-histories type of reality, experimental 
evidences favours mechanism (immaterialism) on materialism (for which there has 
never been any evidence at all).


There is a great deal of evidence for materialism.  It has succeeded as 
the basis for theories that not only explain but also predict almost 
everything that is explained at all.  In contrast Platonism has never 
successfully predicted anything.  As Sean Carroll put it, "All human 
progress has been made by studying the shadows on the wall."


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

Re: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/25/2018 1:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

See my papers. We get a quantum logic for the observable.


How do you define an observable such that everyone can agree on the 
observed value?


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

Re: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/25/2018 1:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


Obviates action at a distance, but not the quantum inseparability, 
which is simply linearity, which should be derived from Mechanism, and 
steps have been done in that direction, as physics must be given by 
self-reference statistics on semi-computable predicate


How is that going to guarantee intersubjective agreement... or does it 
lead to many solipistic worlds with one consciousness in each?


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

Re: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/25/2018 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Exactly like in arithmetic. But the interaction of Bob and Alice, does not make 
any worlds less probable, only some worlds get less accessible from where they 
have made the measurement. Cf RSSA … the probabilities are always relative.


?? How do you calculate the probabilities; relative or not.

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

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 5:48:10 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 8:57:16 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 10:51:13 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Bruno Marchal 
>>>
>>> On 22 Apr 2018, at 01:47, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>>>
>>> From: smitra 
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22-04-2018 00:18, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>>
 On 4/21/2018 12:42 PM, smitra wrote:

>
> That's then an artifact of invoking an effective collapse of the 
> wavefunction due to introducing the observer. The correlated two particle 
> state is either put in by hand or one has shown how it was created. In 
> the 
> former case one is introducing non-local effects in an ad-hoc way in a 
> theory that only has local interactions, so there is then nothing to 
> explain in that case. In the latter case, the entangled state itself 
> results from the local dynamics, one can put ALice and Bob at far away 
> locations there and wait until the two particles arrive at their 
> locations. 
> The way the state vectors of the entire system that now also includes the 
> state vectors of Alice and Bob themselves evolve, has no nontrivial 
> non-local effects in them at all.
>

 Sure it does.  The state vector itself is a function of spacelike
 separate events, which cause it to evolve into orthogonal
 components...whose statistics violated Bell's inequality.

 Brent

>>>
>>> There is no non-locality implied here unless you assume that the 
>>> dynamics as predicted by QM is the result of a local hidden variables 
>>> theory.
>>>
>>> Saibal
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no need to suggest local (or non-local) hidden variables. The 
>>> non-locality we are talking about is implied by the quantum state itself -- 
>>> nothing to do with the dynamics.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But that type of non-locality has never been questioned, neither in the 
>>> MWI, or a fortiori in QM+collapse. But the MWI explains without the need of 
>>> “mysterious” influence-at-a-distance, which would be the case in the 
>>> mono-universe theory, or in Bohm-De Broglie pilot wave theory. Without 
>>> dynamic we have “only” d’Espagnat type of inseparability.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems that you are starting to see it from my perspective. 
>>> Non-locality is just another way of emphasizing the non-separablity of the 
>>> quantum singlet state. As you say, this is true in MWI as in collapse 
>>> theories. In my extended development of the mathematics in another recent 
>>> post, I demonstrated that there is actually no difference between MWI and 
>>> CI in this regard. All that we have is the non-separability of the state, 
>>> which means that a measurement on one particle affects the result of 
>>> measurements on the other -- they are inseparable. This is all that 
>>> non-locality means, and this is not changed by MWI. An awful lot of 
>>> nonsense has been talked about this -- people trying to find a "mechanism" 
>>> for the inseparability -- but that is not necessary. Quantum theory 
>>> requires it, and it has been totally vindicated by experiment. That is the 
>>> way things are, in one world or many.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> You place great faith in the singlet wf. But how can you legitimately 
>> treat the system quantum mechanically if you assume zero uncertainty in the 
>> total spin AM? AG
>>
>
> Ah yes, but far greater fun is found in the triplet state!
>
> LC
>

Am I to assume you don't have a substantive answer with so much at stake? 
AG 

-- 
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: Entanglement

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 8:57:16 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 10:51:13 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> From: Bruno Marchal 
>>
>> On 22 Apr 2018, at 01:47, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>>
>> From: smitra 
>>
>>
>> On 22-04-2018 00:18, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/21/2018 12:42 PM, smitra wrote:
>>>

 That's then an artifact of invoking an effective collapse of the 
 wavefunction due to introducing the observer. The correlated two particle 
 state is either put in by hand or one has shown how it was created. In the 
 former case one is introducing non-local effects in an ad-hoc way in a 
 theory that only has local interactions, so there is then nothing to 
 explain in that case. In the latter case, the entangled state itself 
 results from the local dynamics, one can put ALice and Bob at far away 
 locations there and wait until the two particles arrive at their 
 locations. 
 The way the state vectors of the entire system that now also includes the 
 state vectors of Alice and Bob themselves evolve, has no nontrivial 
 non-local effects in them at all.

>>>
>>> Sure it does.  The state vector itself is a function of spacelike
>>> separate events, which cause it to evolve into orthogonal
>>> components...whose statistics violated Bell's inequality.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> There is no non-locality implied here unless you assume that the dynamics 
>> as predicted by QM is the result of a local hidden variables theory.
>>
>> Saibal
>>
>>
>> There is no need to suggest local (or non-local) hidden variables. The 
>> non-locality we are talking about is implied by the quantum state itself -- 
>> nothing to do with the dynamics.
>>
>>
>>
>> But that type of non-locality has never been questioned, neither in the 
>> MWI, or a fortiori in QM+collapse. But the MWI explains without the need of 
>> “mysterious” influence-at-a-distance, which would be the case in the 
>> mono-universe theory, or in Bohm-De Broglie pilot wave theory. Without 
>> dynamic we have “only” d’Espagnat type of inseparability.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>> It seems that you are starting to see it from my perspective. 
>> Non-locality is just another way of emphasizing the non-separablity of the 
>> quantum singlet state. As you say, this is true in MWI as in collapse 
>> theories. In my extended development of the mathematics in another recent 
>> post, I demonstrated that there is actually no difference between MWI and 
>> CI in this regard. All that we have is the non-separability of the state, 
>> which means that a measurement on one particle affects the result of 
>> measurements on the other -- they are inseparable. This is all that 
>> non-locality means, and this is not changed by MWI. An awful lot of 
>> nonsense has been talked about this -- people trying to find a "mechanism" 
>> for the inseparability -- but that is not necessary. Quantum theory 
>> requires it, and it has been totally vindicated by experiment. That is the 
>> way things are, in one world or many.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> You place great faith in the singlet wf. But how can you legitimately 
> treat the system quantum mechanically if you assume zero uncertainty in the 
> total spin AM? AG
>

Ah yes, but far greater fun is found in the triplet state!

LC

-- 
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: Entanglement

[John Clark]

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 12:26 PM,  wrote:

> *> the MW advocates (Clark, Smitra, et al) who are comfortable ignoring
> the obvious absurdity of the need for creating multiple observers with
> identical memories,*


Historically the argument from personal incredulity has proven to be a very
poor way to figure out how the world works. It’s absurd to think that the
Earth moves and yet it does. It’s absurd to thing that random mutation and
natural selection could produce any thing as grand as a living animal much
less a human being and yet it does. In his EPR paper Einstein showed that
if existing quantum mechanics was complete then absurd things would result
and therefore quantum mechanics can’t be complete. But years later Bell
showed how a experiment to test this could be set up and a few years after
that Aspect actually did the difficult experiment and it turns out that the
absurd result that Einstein laughed about actually occurs in the real world.


Perhaps the problem is with the name, in a Reductio ad absurdum proof it is
not good enough to show that the result is odd or even absurd, you’ve got
to show it is logically self contradictory.

> this being a clear case of "the cure" (for collapse) being worse than the
> disease.

In this case the disease is the moon doesn’t exist when I’m not looking at
it, yes Many Worlds is absurd but not as absurd as that, but I admit that
is just my opinion and the universe may disagree. Whatever is true one
thing is certain, the universe is absurd.

John K Clark

-- 
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.

Mind Uploading

[John Clark]

Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> >* The answer is that if a belief comes from reason, it might still be
> false. The belief that fact is earth was due to reason based on local
> extrapolation. Reason build theories, but later, reason + new evidence can
> show old theories to be wrong. So [...]*



So? If reason doesn’t work how can you have a “so”, how can you use reason
to reach a conclusion about reason, or a conclusion about anything else?


* > when applying a theory, we need some faith.*


A tentative scientific hypothesis has as much to do with faith as an
amorphous grey vague blog has to do with God. You like the word “faith”
because you know your opponents don’t like it, and you like the sound of
the word “God” even though you don’t believe in the concept the word
symbolizes.  And none of the ignorant Greeks who have been dead for
thousands of years and would flunk a forth grade science test can change
that fact.


 John K Clark

-- 
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: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 10:51:13 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> From: Bruno Marchal >
>
> On 22 Apr 2018, at 01:47, Bruce Kellett < 
> bhke...@optusnet.com.au > wrote:
>
> From: smitra >
>
>
> On 22-04-2018 00:18, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>> On 4/21/2018 12:42 PM, smitra wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> That's then an artifact of invoking an effective collapse of the 
>>> wavefunction due to introducing the observer. The correlated two particle 
>>> state is either put in by hand or one has shown how it was created. In the 
>>> former case one is introducing non-local effects in an ad-hoc way in a 
>>> theory that only has local interactions, so there is then nothing to 
>>> explain in that case. In the latter case, the entangled state itself 
>>> results from the local dynamics, one can put ALice and Bob at far away 
>>> locations there and wait until the two particles arrive at their locations. 
>>> The way the state vectors of the entire system that now also includes the 
>>> state vectors of Alice and Bob themselves evolve, has no nontrivial 
>>> non-local effects in them at all.
>>>
>>
>> Sure it does.  The state vector itself is a function of spacelike
>> separate events, which cause it to evolve into orthogonal
>> components...whose statistics violated Bell's inequality.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> There is no non-locality implied here unless you assume that the dynamics 
> as predicted by QM is the result of a local hidden variables theory.
>
> Saibal
>
>
> There is no need to suggest local (or non-local) hidden variables. The 
> non-locality we are talking about is implied by the quantum state itself -- 
> nothing to do with the dynamics.
>
>
>
> But that type of non-locality has never been questioned, neither in the 
> MWI, or a fortiori in QM+collapse. But the MWI explains without the need of 
> “mysterious” influence-at-a-distance, which would be the case in the 
> mono-universe theory, or in Bohm-De Broglie pilot wave theory. Without 
> dynamic we have “only” d’Espagnat type of inseparability.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> It seems that you are starting to see it from my perspective. Non-locality 
> is just another way of emphasizing the non-separablity of the quantum 
> singlet state. As you say, this is true in MWI as in collapse theories. In 
> my extended development of the mathematics in another recent post, I 
> demonstrated that there is actually no difference between MWI and CI in 
> this regard. All that we have is the non-separability of the state, which 
> means that a measurement on one particle affects the result of measurements 
> on the other -- they are inseparable. This is all that non-locality means, 
> and this is not changed by MWI. An awful lot of nonsense has been talked 
> about this -- people trying to find a "mechanism" for the inseparability -- 
> but that is not necessary. Quantum theory requires it, and it has been 
> totally vindicated by experiment. That is the way things are, in one world 
> or many.
>
> Bruce
>

You place great faith in the singlet wf. But how can you legitimately treat 
the system quantum mechanically if you assume zero uncertainty in the total 
spin AM? AG

-- 
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: Entanglement

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 23 Apr 2018, at 13:10, Bruce Kellett > wrote:


From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 23 Apr 2018, at 05:43, Brent Meeker > wrote:



On 4/22/2018 6:50 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
From: *Brent Meeker* >


On 4/22/2018 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

It follows from both QM and Comp. If Alice and Bob are
space-separated, I cannot even makes sense of how you can
measure correlations, given that once they are separated,
whatever result they got, will be shared with different Alice
and Bob in different branch. I am not even sure we can define
what could be an action at a distance in the quantum
formalism. The notion does not even makes sense when we
assume special relativity. The only reason to believe this is
the habit to think that there is only one bob and one Alice,
which makes no sense once separated, unless they are
correlated with a third observer, but then, again by looking
at the wave without collapse, there will be no action at a
distance. The no locality is only an appearance due to the
fact that we belong to infinities of histories, and cannot
known which one we are in.

It depends on what you mean by "action at a distance".  The 
theory you are depending on for these pronouncements entails 
that, on a MW picture, some of the possible worlds have 
probabilities that go to zero as a result of an interaction at 
Alice or at Bob.  So an interaction at one of them changes the 
probabilities at the other.


For Bruno, it seems that "non-locality" means "action at a 
distance", where he interprets that to mean that there is some 
superluminal transfer of information, 


I prefer to distinguish non-locality (inseparability), action at a 
distance, and transfer of information at a distance. Even in a 
mono-universe theory, the action at a distance exists (by EPR-BELL) 
but cannot be used to transfer information. But in the multiverse, 
we have the inseparability, but we don’t have any 
action-at-a-distance. At least that is what I am arguing for.


That is what you are arguing for. But you have not as yet put forward 
any clear and convincing argument that you can succeed in your search 
for such a theory. You have to take the accepted formalism for the 
singlet state and develop a unitary theory that avoids non-locality. 
I have recently reproduced the argument given by several MWI 
advocates, and have shown that it does not avoid the non-locality 
intrinsic to the non-separability of the singlet state wave function. 
Your challenge is to start from the same state and apply unitary 
evolution to reach a different conclusion.


I did it, and later I refer to Price simpler treatment. Deustch did 
the same in the Heisenberg picture. See the answer by Saibal, I can 
hardly do better


What answer by Saibal? He has not explained anything. As for Price, he 
just did not see that he had built non-separability, and hence 
non-locality, into his treatment. Deutsch tries to answer the case by 
showing that information transfer is everywhere local. That is fine, 
because that was never in dispute. He does not seem to realize that it 
is the non-separability of the wave-function, not information transfer, 
that lies at the heart of the issue, and he simply did not address the 
real source of the non-locality; which is that the wave-function itself 
vanishes for combinations of worlds that violate angular momentum 
conservation. It is a property of the wave-function, not a property of 
the number of "worlds" you consider, or the way information is conveyed 
between experimenters.


Bruce

--
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: Entanglement

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 22 Apr 2018, at 06:39, Bruce Kellett > wrote:


From: *smitra* mailto:smi...@zonnet.nl>>


On 22-04-2018 04:51, Bruce Kellett wrote:

From: SMITRA mailto:smi...@zonnet.nl>>

  I think the confusion arises from a failure to distinguish between
 'local interactions' and 'non-local quantum states'. In the
entangled
 singlet case we have a non-local state since it involves two
particles
 that are correlated by angular momentum conservation no matter
how far
 apart they are, or whether measurements on the separate
particles are
 made at time-like of space-like separations. No one has ever denied
 that the interactions involved in the separate measurements on
thetwo
 particles are all local, or that decoherence effects that
entanglethe
 particles with environmental degrees of freedom are all local,
unitary
 interactions. Decoherence leads to the effective diagonalization of
 the density matrix, and the effective separation of copies of the
 experimenters that obtained different results, but this effective
 collapse of the wave-function is brought about by purely local
 interactions.

  The usual many-worlds argument for the absence of non-local
effects
 points to the fact that all the interactions involved in
measurement
 and decoherence are purely local to argue that there is no
 non-locality. But this entirely misses the fact that the original
 singlet state:

   |psi> = (|+>|-> - |->|+>)/sqrt(2)

  is intrinsically non-local. It refers to correlations due to
angular
 momentum conservation that persist over arbitrary separations, and
 these correlations are neither enhanced nor destroyed by any
number of
 purely local interactions.

 So many-worlds or many-minds interpretations of quantum theory
do not
 obviate the need for non-locality: they cannot, because the basic
 state that is talked about in all interpretations is non-local. The
 point to be made is that in no theory, either a collapse or a
 non-collapse theory, are there any non-local interactions: all
 interactions in measurement and decoherence are local. But that
does
 not mean that what one does to one particle of the singlet does not
 affect the other particle -- directly and instantaneously. It
is just
 that this effect is not instantiated by a local (or non-local)
hidden
 variable. There are no faster-than-light physical transfers of
 information. That would involve a local hidden variable, and
there are
 none such.

 The point is that quantum mechanics is weirder that you think
in that
 it is intrinsically non-local, even though all physical
interactions
 are necessarily local. Thinking of the 6 spatial dimensions of the
 separated singlet particles as forming a single point in
configuration
 space may help one to visualize this. Alternatively, one can
note that
 the tensor product Hilbert space of the two spin states is
independent
 of spatial separation.

  Bruce

 Quantum mechanics is a lot weirder w.r.t. to its non-locality
aspects
in single world theories. It is there that Alice, after she
makes her
measurement, has to wonder how the implied information about Bob's
measurement result popped up at his place. This is not an issue
in the
MWI.

 Saibal

There is no difference between collapse and no-collapse theories in
this regard. MWI does not eliminate the non-locality in the
wave-function for the singlet state. This can easily be seen by
following the unitary development of my state |psi> above
through its
interactions with the measuring device, observer, and the
environment.
The extra worlds in MWI just come along for the ride -- they do not
add anything of substance to the argument. All the discussion about
whether Bell's theorem is invalid for MWI because he assumed
collapse,
or he assumed counterfactual definiteness, or he assumed that
measurements had only one outcome, etc,  is totally irrelevant
to the
issue of non-locality. It is in the original quantum state, so it is
not eliminated by simply retaining all possible measurement results.

 Bruce


In the MWI the non-locality becomes a common cause effect that can 
be traced back to the creation of the entangled spins. As pointed 
out by Vaidman here:


https://youtu.be/jKGuGptafvo?t=1876 



it's in the ordinary collapse models where there is real problem.

Saibal
Vaidman seems to be trying to demolish Bohm in this video -- nothing 
intelligent about any "common cause" effect for Bell-type 
correlations. It seems that Vaidman is really playing with idea of 
retro-causality. And such things are ort

Re: Entanglement

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 22 Apr 2018, at 01:47, Bruce Kellett > wrote:


From: *smitra* mailto:smi...@zonnet.nl>>


On 22-04-2018 00:18, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/21/2018 12:42 PM, smitra wrote:


That's then an artifact of invoking an effective collapse of
the wavefunction due to introducing the observer. The
correlated two particle state is either put in by hand or
one has shown how it was created. In the former case one is
introducing non-local effects in an ad-hoc way in a theory
that only has local interactions, so there is then nothing
to explain in that case. In the latter case, the entangled
state itself results from the local dynamics, one can put
ALice and Bob at far away locations there and wait until the
two particles arrive at their locations. The way the state
vectors of the entire system that now also includes the
state vectors of Alice and Bob themselves evolve, has no
nontrivial non-local effects in them at all.


Sure it does.  The state vector itself is a function of spacelike
separate events, which cause it to evolve into orthogonal
components...whose statistics violated Bell's inequality.

Brent


There is no non-locality implied here unless you assume that the 
dynamics as predicted by QM is the result of a local hidden 
variables theory.


Saibal


There is no need to suggest local (or non-local) hidden variables. 
The non-locality we are talking about is implied by the quantum state 
itself -- nothing to do with the dynamics.



But that type of non-locality has never been questioned, neither in 
the MWI, or a fortiori in QM+collapse. But the MWI explains without 
the need of “mysterious” influence-at-a-distance, which would be the 
case in the mono-universe theory, or in Bohm-De Broglie pilot wave 
theory. Without dynamic we have “only” d’Espagnat type of inseparability.


Bruno


It seems that you are starting to see it from my perspective. 
Non-locality is just another way of emphasizing the non-separablity of 
the quantum singlet state. As you say, this is true in MWI as in 
collapse theories. In my extended development of the mathematics in 
another recent post, I demonstrated that there is actually no difference 
between MWI and CI in this regard. All that we have is the 
non-separability of the state, which means that a measurement on one 
particle affects the result of measurements on the other -- they are 
inseparable. This is all that non-locality means, and this is not 
changed by MWI. An awful lot of nonsense has been talked about this -- 
people trying to find a "mechanism" for the inseparability -- but that 
is not necessary. Quantum theory requires it, and it has been totally 
vindicated by experiment. That is the way things are, in one world or many.


Bruce

--
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: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 23 Apr 2018, at 12:58, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> 
> [Sorry for the formatting. I don't know what to do, gmail is becoming 
> unusable]
> 
> On 22 April 2018 at 15:55, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>> Hi Telmo,
>> 
>> 
>> On 21 Apr 2018, at 10:59, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Bruno,
>> 
>> Ok, but it is good to keep in mind that pagan gods were very different
>> cultural constructs than the christian god.
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, but with neoplatonism, the “pagan god” is the ONE, and it will
>> influence a lot Judaism, Christianity and Islam, not always with the "Second
>> God" (Aristotle Matter), and the three religions will keep some branches
>> which kept the Platonist insight, although often secretly (to avoid being
>> burned alive, how to avoid (implicitly) telling a machine’s theological
>> secret (a theorem from G* minus G) I guess!.
>> 
>> The jewish and islamic “light” led to the translation of the greeks, both of
>> 1) theologian (“The Arabic text “Theology of Aristotle” was a translation of
>> Plotinus!) and 2) of the the mathematician, like Diophantus (and recently we
>> found the second lost part!).
>> 
>> Those quasi-neoplantonis muslims still exist, but are usually persecuted,
>> like the Bektashi Alevi or the Sufis. There are still 60.000 Bektashi Alevi
>> in the Balkans. Ibn Arabi has still some influence. Neoplatonis has survived
>> n the Middle-East up to the eleventh century, and made possible
>> Enlightenment.
>> 
>> The very idea of separating theology from science is a political means to
>> steal the right to ask fundamental questions and to replace it by dogma.
>> That can make sense during war, or hard period, but the sad fact is that the
>> most fundamental science is not yet studied with the scientific method
>> (modesty and doubt, nothing is taken as faith, but as hypothesis, even, and
>> I would say, especially, in the fundamental questioning).
>> 
>> So it is better to use the term “theology” in the sense of those who created
>> the science, and made the reasoning, before being banished by those who will
>> steal theology to use it as authoritative argument (and doing an invalid
>> “blasphemy” which is invoke the most supreme authority. It is like invoking
>> Truth, and the Platonist use “God” as a nickname for the subject of
>> research.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I believe the christian
>> tradition is much more interested in creating a "theory of everything"
>> through religion than the pagans were. Christianism was fashioned into
>> a cultural operating system for large-scale control.
>> 
>> 
>> That is not a theory of everything. That is, logically, defining a set of
>> total computable functions, like for example the set of primitive recursive
>> functions, and declaring heretic anyone building a machine out of that
>> class. No universal machine!
>> 
>> 
>> I agree, but it is sold as one.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Yes. Indeed. That is why we should just consider them as con man. In my
>> country, christians, espcailhy the spiritual one, are aware of this. It is
>> weird that the atheists keep defending them all the time against those who
>> just want to do science, like it was done, for a millenium.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> It is imposing (fake) security and destroying liberty.
>> 
>> It is “fake” religion, except that like in the Soviet Union, many in the
>> “Party” are not dumb, and among the artists and scientists keep open the
>> eyes on liberty of thought. So, even today, some theologian among catholic
>> and muslims remains very good, and know well the greek neoplatonist
>> theology, and often still excommunicated, which is a progress with respect
>> to burning at stake.
>> 
>> It is a will of control, indeed, but that is only an historic contingent
>> event, and we can only hope coming back to reason.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Max Weber made a
>> better job of describing this than I ever could, for those who are
>> interested. I think pagan gods were much more akin to cartoon
>> characters, signifying norms, traditions, ideas, political factions
>> and so on.
>> 
>> 
>> That was the popular old greek Gods. But except for the fun, Plato was
>> already monist/monotheist, (in many texts) yet without a name for the whole
>> (which was very wise), but with the neoplatonist the name comes again (the
>> one) with the “usual” sort of comprehension axiom to avoid the paradox of
>> naming the unconceivable unnameable. The typical “cantorian” difficulties of
>> the notion of “Whole”.
>> 
>> Each time I talk about greek theology, it is about the dialog among the
>> researcher on Plato, notably the Middle Platonism, first century: Moderatus
>> de Gades, who saw the 5 hypostases (which are explained in the order also in
>> Plotinus, but Porphyry cut it and put the two last hypostases in the wrong
>> “chapter”. I like Porphyry but that was wrong!). I got the point only after
>> I see an mention of the five hypostases asserted by Simplicius as proposed
>> by Moderatus of Gades. Moderatus extracted them from the five “aff

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 23 Apr 2018, at 00:39, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
>  >> “Faith is believing what you know ain't so.”
> 
> > That is blind faith, which is the opposite of faith by reason,
> 
> 
> ​If the belief comes through reason then what does faith have to do with it?
> 


Cannot suppress that blanc. Sorry. 

The answer is that if a belief comes from reason, it might still be false. The 
belief that fact is earth was due to reason based on local extrapolation. 
Reason build theories, but later, reason + new evidence can show old theories 
to be wrong. So, when applying a theory, we need some faith. The high diploma 
of an engineers does not prevent a machine to crash.

Bruno

-- 
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: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:29, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Science is never a question of agreement or disagreement, but of 
>> understanding or finding a mistake, internal or external (vis-àb-vis facts).
> 
> That's simplisitc.  You commonly refer to agreement of beliefs, as in "Do you 
> believe 2+2=4?"  Science is only possible because people can agree on facts.  
> The account of how Alfred Russell Wallace tried to prove that the Earth is 
> round to the head of the Flat Earth Society is a cautionary tale about that.

Only when we bet that there is reality, which is science only when metaphysics 
is done with the scientific method, but the scientist will not start with “do 
you believe that 2+2=4”. He will give some axioms, like

0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

And make reasoning from that, without addressing question of belief. For 
example, if someone say that he disagrees with the third axioms, the teacher, 
say, will say to wait when they will study an axiomatisation of all integers, 
but that today they axiomatise only the non negative integers.

Now, we can agree or disagree on the applicability of a theory, when used 
informally. But in “serious theology”, we use the axiomatic method, and there 
is no disagreement possible, as when you do theology scientifically, your own 
private opinion in the matter is kept silent.

The contemporary disagreement in theology just comes the fact that since 1500 
years, we are just not allowed to use reason and methodical verification in 
that field. We tolerate the argument of authority since long, or we have no 
choice, or become dissident, etc.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:24, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> But religion, when understood, make you love all humans and non humans.
> 
> That's all the true Scotsman fallacy.

Not at all. There is a reason why religion (well understood) makes people 
recognising themselves into the other, cutting jealousy at the root, for 
example. But you are partially right, as this belong to G* minus G. 

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:23, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> That's confused.  Values are not objective facts and nobody (including 
>>> militant atheists) thinks they are.  Values, like loving your children, are 
>>> inherently subjective.
>> Subjective does not mean it has no intrinsic values, 
> 
> That's my point.  All values are subjective.  They are all relative to 
> someone holding them.

That is the case for all belief, be it on matter, mind, people, number, etc. So 
let us put them on a table, and call them hypothesis or theories, and let us 
doing the tests.



> 
>> like self-preservation and harmony with the neighbourhood. Everyone agrees 
>> on good and bad in most case. Everyone prefer to drink water to being boiled 
>> aliv
> 
> Actually that's probably not true.  We all know of people who have immolated 
> themselves.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/20/david-buckel-lgbt-lawyer-self-immolation-new-york
>  
> 

Yes, and there is country where hundreds of woman have immolated themselves, 
and those who survived and confirmed a speculation I did from mechanism: it 
feels not bad, when they burned, only when they re-try to survive at the 
hospital did the burns skin becomes extremely painful. But that hardly change 
the point.



> 
> So whether some one prefers drinking water to being boiled alive probably 
> depends on the consequences of the alternatives.
> 
> But I agree there is no sharp division between subjective and objective.  
> Even in physics 'facts' tend to boil down to what all informed persons agree 
> on.

OK. With mechanism, we need not toagree more than what we get in primary school 
in math, then we can explain how the physical reality is a subjective plural 
number’s mind construction, in a verifiable way, and up to now it fits. 
This annoyed only the people dogmatic on (primitive) matter, which is weird 
given that I show that the (primitive) matter hypothesis to be testable (and 
well not favoured by the early testing (quantum mechanics).

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:14, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> The problem is that when people oppose science and religion, they tend to 
>> forget that “Primary matter” is also a “religion”, and eventually they take 
>> a religion for granted without knowing.
> 
> You keep saying that, but it's just smearing your philosophical opponents.  
> Just because Patricia Churchland or Daniel Dennett and Anil Seth think 
> material processes can explain consciousness doesn't mean they think matter 
> is primary, or even have the concept of primary matter. 

What would be their alternate primitive notions? 




> They are generally referring to matter like brains and computers which are 
> many levels of composition above quarks, electrons, or strings. 

But they believe that those electron exist primitively, or are composed of 
things existing primitively. 


> And every one of them would instantly reject the idea of worshiping matter or 
> deriving moral precepts from the Standard Model.  

Yes. But we discuss in the metaphysical or theological science. Denote even say 
that physics has no conceptual problem, and his own theory assumed brain. Not 
that brain could be a number illusion or comes from anything non material. 



> So "the problem" is in your imagination.  You complain of fundamentalism; but 
> you adopt a fundamentalism of computation.

Not at all. I do not even claim that mechanism is true. Only :

1) that mechanism entails Theology of Plato and refute the theology of 
Aristotle (the belief in primary matter, or the confusion between primary 
matter and matter).

2) as mechanism entails a quantum many-histories type of reality, experimental 
evidences favours mechanism (immaterialism) on materialism (for which there has 
never been any evidence at all).

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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: [SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 22:58, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/22/2018 6:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Which is the opposite of economy. And it destroys us. Th fault is neither in 
>> money, nor in democracies, and the only thing we need to do is to re-intsall 
>> the free market.
> 
> A common piece of conservative religious dogma in the U.S.

Then those conservatives if they exist, would never allowed prohibition, which 
is the technic to bypass the monopoly rules and to make the free market 
disappearing.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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: [SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 22:55, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/22/2018 6:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Mono-theism is monism: the idea that the reality is ONE, and thus points 
>> toward universality. It is a good thing as long as dogma are not imposed.
> 
> monotheism n. The doctrine that there is exactly on personal God and that he 
> ought to be worshiped.
> 
> monoism n. in general any doctrine affirming the unity or the uniqueness of 
> its subject matter, in contrast to dualism and pluralism.
> 
> The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, ed. Thomas Mautner, 2000



OK, but that distinction is only a reflect of having separated religion from 
science. As no one, except Samya, defend the the idea of worshipping anything, 
and certainly not the One, nicknamed “God”, as Truth is not definable, like 
Consciousness (provably so with computationalism, and usually accepted by most 
theologians).

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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: Entanglement

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 23 Apr 2018, at 13:10, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>>> On 23 Apr 2018, at 05:43, Brent Meeker < 
>>> meeke...@verizon.net 
>>> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 4/22/2018 6:50 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
 From: Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
> 
> On 4/22/2018 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> It follows from both QM and Comp. If Alice and Bob are space-separated, I 
> cannot even makes sense of how you can measure correlations, given that 
> once they are separated, whatever result they got, will be shared with 
> different Alice and Bob in different branch. I am not even sure we can 
> define what could be an action at a distance in the quantum formalism. 
> The notion does not even makes sense when we assume special relativity. 
> The only reason to believe this is the habit to think that there is only 
> one bob and one Alice, which makes no sense once separated, unless they 
> are correlated with a third observer, but then, again by looking at the 
> wave without collapse, there will be no action at a distance. The no 
> locality is only an appearance due to the fact that we belong to 
> infinities of histories, and cannot known which one we are in.
> 
> It depends on what you mean by "action at a distance".  The theory you 
> are depending on for these pronouncements entails that, on a MW picture, 
> some of the possible worlds have probabilities that go to zero as a 
> result of an interaction at Alice or at Bob.  So an interaction at one of 
> them changes the probabilities at the other.
 
 For Bruno, it seems that "non-locality" means "action at a distance", 
 where he interprets that to mean that there is some superluminal transfer 
 of information,
>> 
>> I prefer to distinguish non-locality (inseparability), action at a distance, 
>> and transfer of information at a distance. Even in a mono-universe theory, 
>> the action at a distance exists (by EPR-BELL) but cannot be used to transfer 
>> information. But in the multiverse, we have the inseparability, but we don’t 
>> have any action-at-a-distance. At least that is what I am arguing for. 
> 
> That is what you are arguing for. But you have not as yet put forward any 
> clear and convincing argument that you can succeed in your search for such a 
> theory. You have to take the accepted formalism for the singlet state and 
> develop a unitary theory that avoids non-locality. I have recently reproduced 
> the argument given by several MWI advocates, and have shown that it does not 
> avoid the non-locality intrinsic to the non-separability of the singlet state 
> wave function. Your challenge is to start from the same state and apply 
> unitary evolution to reach a different conclusion.

I did it, and later I refer to Price simpler treatment. Deustch did the same in 
the Heisenberg picture. See the answer by Saibal, I can hardly do better. 


> 
 by tachyons or some such. And he is quite right to say that there is no 
 such interaction or dynamics in quantum theory. Because if "non-locality" 
 meant some superluminal transfer of information, by particles or something 
 else, then that would be giving a *local* explanation of non-locality, 
 which is a contradiction. So non-locality can never mean "action at a 
 distance", it can only mean that the theory is such that the state is not 
 separable, and changing one end automatically changes the other, just as 
 pushing one side of a billiard ball moves the other side as well. 
 (Ignoring the problems of a relativistic explanation of extended physical 
 objects. This is not a particularly good analogy, but it is the best I can 
 think of at short notice!) In quantum mechanics, there can be no 
 "mechanical" explanation of the non-locality inherent in the non-separable 
 state. That is why we call it "non-locality" rather than "action at a 
 distance".
 
 I acknowledge that there are linguistic problems here, but that is just 
 the nature of quantum mechanics, and we have to live with it. Trying to 
 "explain" this fact further is bound to fail, because there is no deeper 
 explanation.
>> 
>> Of course, I do believe that there is a deeper and simpler explanation. QM 
>> seems very plausibly be only how the numbers can structured arithmetic from 
>> their indexical internal points of view. It is the canonical logic, imposed 
>> by incompleteness, on what is observable ([]p & <>t (& p)) for them.
> 
> Your own versions of mechanism and/or "comp" do not work here, because you 
> have claimed that MWI itself, within the standard formulae of quantum theory, 
> obviates non-locality.

Obviates action at a distance, but not the quantum inseparability, which is 
simply linearity, which should be derived from Mechanism, and step

Re: Entanglement

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:41, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/22/2018 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> It follows from both QM and Comp. If Alice and Bob are space-separated, I 
>> cannot even makes sense of how you can measure correlations, given that once 
>> they are separated, whatever result they got, will be shared with different 
>> Alice and Bob in different branch. I am not even sure we can define what 
>> could be an action at a distance in the quantum formalism. The notion does 
>> not even makes sense when we assume special relativity. The only reason to 
>> believe this is the habit to think that there is only one bob and one Alice, 
>> which makes no sense once separated, unless they are correlated with a third 
>> observer, but then, again by looking at the wave without collapse, there 
>> will be no action at a distance. The no locality is only an appearance due 
>> to the fact that we belong to infinities of histories, and cannot known 
>> which one we are in.
>> 
> It depends on what you mean by "action at a distance".  The theory you are 
> depending on for these pronouncements entails that, on a MW picture, some of 
> the possible worlds have probabilities that go to zero as a result of an 
> interaction at Alice or at Bob.  So an interaction at one of them changes the 
> probabilities at the other.

Exactly like in arithmetic. But the interaction of Bob and Alice, does not make 
any worlds less probable, only some worlds get less accessible from where they 
have made the measurement. Cf RSSA … the probabilities are always relative. 

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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: Entanglement

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 19:22, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 4:19:44 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 20 Apr 2018, at 03:18, Bruce Kellett > > wrote:
>> 
>> From: Bruno Marchal >
 On 18 Apr 2018, at 15:45, Bruce Kellett < 
 bhke...@optusnet.com.au > wrote:
 
 From: Bruno Marchal >
>> On 17 Apr 2018, at 13:52, Bruce Kellett < 
>> bhke...@optusnet.com.au > wrote
> 
>> But note particularly that the spin measurement is made in the basis 
>> chosen by the experimenter (by orienting his/her magnet).
> 
> OK.
> 
>> The outcome of the measurement is + or -,
> 
> For Alice and Bob, OK.
> 
>> not one of the possible infinite set of possible basis vector 
>> orientations. The orientation is not measured, it is chose by the 
>> experimenter. So that is one potential source of an infinite set of 
>> worlds eliminated right away. The singlet is a   
>>   superposition of two states, + and -: it is not a 
>> superposition of possible basis vectors.
> 
> ? (That is far too ambiguous).
 
 ? It is not in the least ambiguous. The singlet state is not a 
 superposition of basis vectors.
>>> 
>>> ?
>>> 
>>> The singlet state is the superposition of Iup>IMinus> and (Minus>Iup>.
>> 
>> Those are not generalized basis vectors: they are eigenfunctions of the spin 
>> projection operator in a particular basis. The singlet state is not a 
>> superposition of vectors from different bases.
> 
> Did I say that?
> 
>> 
>> 
>> If you think about it for a little, the formalism of QM does not allow 
>> the state to be written in any way that could suggest that.
>> 
>> I don't know what Everett says in his long text, but if it is any 
>> different from the above, then it is not standard quantum mechanics. 
>> Deutsch is a different case. He has a very strange notion about what 
>> constitutes different worlds in QM. Standard QM and Everett's 
>> interpretation are very clear: different worlds arise by the process of 
>> decoherence which diagonalizes the density matrix. The net effect is 
>> that worlds are, by definition, non interacting (contra Deutsch's ideas).
> 
> ?
 
 This relates to your lack of comprehension above.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Patronising !!!
>> 
>> Merely pointing out your apparent lack of comprehension when you fail to 
>> appreciate the difference between the eigenvectors of a particular operator 
>> and the free choice of a basis for Hilbert space.
> 
> You aggravante your case.
> 
> 
>> 
 Deutsch has two distinct notions of "world" in his approach. He has the 
 standard Everettian notion of a "relative state" corresponding to each 
 term in the superposition of possible measurement outcomes. These relative 
 states are made definite by decoherence,
>>> 
>>> Relatively. Decoherence is only entanglement (with NON-collapse).
>> 
>> So what?
>> 
 and then correspond to different, effectively orthogonal, worlds, each of 
 which represents the experimenter observing one particular result. But 
 Deutsch also has the idea that the infinity of possible bases for an 
 unpolarized qubit also represents an infinity of worlds.
>>> 
>>> That is necessary, and Everett explains this well when he shows that the 
>>> choice of the base to describe the universal wave is irrelevant.
>> 
>> Sure, the choice of basis is irrelevant. It is just that some bases are more 
>> useful than others. And there is no use at all in trying to use all bases at 
>> once!
>> 
>>> (A bit like the choice of the universal Turing formalism is irrelevant to 
>>> get the theology and the physics).
>>> 
>>> 
 This is quite a different notion, and does not occur in Everettian theory.
>>> 
>>> I disagree with this.
>> 
>> Well, you are wrong.
>> 
 In this second notion of "world", the worlds remain in superposition and 
 continue to interfere -- there is no separation into disjoint, 
 non-interacting worlds. In fact, it is precisely this continued 
 interference of these supposed "worlds" that is the explanation for the 
 action of quantum computers -- which Deutsch seems to think actually 
 *prove* his notion of quantum "many-worlds". He is out on a limb on this 
 one, and few experts, even in the quantum computing field, agree with 
 Deutsch on this new notion of "worlds". The essential continued 
 interference between the different basis states in fact means that the 
 "worlds" remain inextricable "one world". (See some of Scott Aaronson's 
 comments on Deutsch and many-worlds in his lecture notes on quantum 
 computing.)
 
 So when you continue to refer to an "infinity of worlds" for the 
 measurements on the entangled spin states, you are using a notion of 
 "world" that does not occur in Everett, and is inherently contro

Re: Entanglement

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 18:26, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 12:00:05 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 7:27:33 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
> From: smitra < <>smi...@zonnet.nl <>>
>> On 20-04-2018 04:54, Brent Meeker wrote:
>> 
>> So a measurement on one can, assuming some conserved quantity
>> entangling them, will have an effect on the other, even if the all the
>> details of measurement and decoherence are included and the
>> measurement is treated as Everett does.  It still zeroes out cross
>> terms in the density matrix that correspond ot violation of the
>> conservation law and that entails changing the wave function at remote
>> places.
>> 
>>  Brent
>> 
>> That's then an artifact of invoking an effective collapse of the 
>> wavefunction due to introducing the observer. The correlated two particle 
>> state is either put in by hand or one has shown how it was created. In the 
>> former case one is introducing non-local effects in an ad-hoc way in a 
>> theory that only has local interactions, so there is then nothing to explain 
>> in that case. In the latter case, the entangled state itself results from 
>> the local dynamics, one can put ALice and Bob at far away locations there 
>> and wait until the two particles arrive at their locations. The way the 
>> state vectors of the entire system that now also includes the state vectors 
>> of Alice and Bob themselves evolve, has no nontrivial non-local effects in 
>> them at all.
>> 
>> Saibal
> 
> I think the confusion arises from a failure to distinguish between 'local 
> interactions' and 'non-local quantum states'. In the entangled singlet case 
> we have a non-local state since it involves two particles that are correlated 
> by angular momentum conservation no matter how far apart they are, or whether 
> measurements on the separate particles are made at time-like of space-like 
> separations. No one has ever denied that the interactions involved in the 
> separate measurements on the two particles are all local, or that decoherence 
> effects that entangle the particles with environmental degrees of freedom are 
> all local, unitary interactions. Decoherence leads to the effective 
> diagonalization of the density matrix, and the effective separation of copies 
> of the experimenters that obtained different results, but this effective 
> collapse of the wave-function is brought about by purely local interactions.
> 
> The usual many-worlds argument for the absence of non-local effects points to 
> the fact that all the interactions involved in measurement and decoherence 
> are purely local to argue that there is no non-locality. But this entirely 
> misses the fact that the original singlet state:
> 
>  |psi> = (|+>|-> - |->|+>)/sqrt(2)
> 
> is intrinsically non-local. It refers to correlations due to angular momentum 
> conservation that persist over arbitrary separations, and these correlations 
> are neither enhanced nor destroyed by any number of purely local interactions.
> 
> So many-worlds or many-minds interpretations of quantum theory do not obviate 
> the need for non-locality: they cannot, because the basic state that is 
> talked about in all interpretations is non-local. The point to be made is 
> that in no theory, either a collapse or a non-collapse theory, are there any 
> non-local interactions: all interactions in measurement and decoherence are 
> local. But that does not mean that what one does to one particle of the 
> singlet does not affect the other particle -- directly and instantaneously. 
> It is just that this effect is not instantiated by a local (or non-local) 
> hidden variable. There are no faster-than-light physical transfers of 
> information. That would involve a local hidden variable, and there are none 
> such.
> 
> So you have two subsystems that are "non-separable", yet the measurements of 
> each are indeed, undeniably spatially separated. Is this a problem, or do we 
> simply sweep it under the rug by saying there is no physical transfer of 
> information? AG 
> 
> I see some light; sort of; two huge elephants in the room that are 
> consciously not acknowledged.  What I wrote above is one, by the advocates of 
> non locality (Brent and Bruce) who curiously have nothing to say in the 
> matter. And the other by the MW advocates (Clark, Smitra, et al) who are 
> comfortable ignoring the obvious absurdity of the need for creating multiple 
> observers with identical memories, this being a clear case of "the cure" (for 
> collapse) being worse than the disease. Where to go from here? AG


To the quasi-trivial fact (assuming you have read the original paper describing 
the discovery that arithmetic entails the existence of all computations, 
without any physical assumptions). So you don’t need to create all observers 
once you agree with a theorem like Euclids “no biggest prime” theorem, and the 
Church-Turing thesis (which is a ve

Re: Entanglement

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 06:39, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: smitra < smi...@zonnet.nl 
> >
>> 
>> On 22-04-2018 04:51, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> From: SMITRA mailto:smi...@zonnet.nl>>
>> 
>>   I think the confusion arises from a failure to distinguish between
>>  'local interactions' and 'non-local quantum states'. In the entangled
>>  singlet case we have a non-local state since it involves two
>> particles
>>  that are correlated by angular momentum conservation no matter how
>> far
>>  apart they are, or whether measurements on the separate particles are
>>  made at time-like of space-like separations. No one has ever denied
>>  that the interactions involved in the separate measurements on the
>> two
>>  particles are all local, or that decoherence effects that entangle
>> the
>>  particles with environmental degrees of freedom are all local,
>> unitary
>>  interactions. Decoherence leads to the effective diagonalization of
>>  the density matrix, and the effective separation of copies of the
>>  experimenters that obtained different results, but this effective
>>  collapse of the wave-function is brought about by purely local
>>  interactions.
>> 
>>   The usual many-worlds argument for the absence of non-local effects
>>  points to the fact that all the interactions involved in measurement
>>  and decoherence are purely local to argue that there is no
>>  non-locality. But this entirely misses the fact that the original
>>  singlet state:
>> 
>>|psi> = (|+>|-> - |->|+>)/sqrt(2)
>> 
>>   is intrinsically non-local. It refers to correlations due to angular
>>  momentum conservation that persist over arbitrary separations, and
>>  these correlations are neither enhanced nor destroyed by any number
>> of
>>  purely local interactions.
>> 
>>   So many-worlds or many-minds interpretations of quantum theory do
>> not
>>  obviate the need for non-locality: they cannot, because the basic
>>  state that is talked about in all interpretations is non-local. The
>>  point to be made is that in no theory, either a collapse or a
>>  non-collapse theory, are there any non-local interactions: all
>>  interactions in measurement and decoherence are local. But that does
>>  not mean that what one does to one particle of the singlet does not
>>  affect the other particle -- directly and instantaneously. It is just
>>  that this effect is not instantiated by a local (or non-local) hidden
>>  variable. There are no faster-than-light physical transfers of
>>  information. That would involve a local hidden variable, and there
>> are
>>  none such.
>> 
>>   The point is that quantum mechanics is weirder that you think in
>> that
>>  it is intrinsically non-local, even though all physical interactions
>>  are necessarily local. Thinking of the 6 spatial dimensions of the
>>  separated singlet particles as forming a single point in
>> configuration
>>  space may help one to visualize this. Alternatively, one can note
>> that
>>  the tensor product Hilbert space of the two spin states is
>> independent
>>  of spatial separation.
>> 
>>   Bruce
>> 
>>  Quantum mechanics is a lot weirder w.r.t. to its non-locality aspects
>> in single world theories. It is there that Alice, after she makes her
>> measurement, has to wonder how the implied information about Bob's
>> measurement result popped up at his place. This is not an issue in the
>> MWI.
>> 
>>  Saibal
>> 
>>  There is no difference between collapse and no-collapse theories in
>> this regard. MWI does not eliminate the non-locality in the
>> wave-function for the singlet state. This can easily be seen by
>> following the unitary development of my state |psi> above through its
>> interactions with the measuring device, observer, and the environment.
>> The extra worlds in MWI just come along for the ride -- they do not
>> add anything of substance to the argument. All the discussion about
>> whether Bell's theorem is invalid for MWI because he assumed collapse,
>> or he assumed counterfactual definiteness, or he assumed that
>> measurements had only one outcome, etc,  is totally irrelevant to the
>> issue of non-locality. It is in the original quantum state, so it is
>> not eliminated by simply retaining all possible measurement results.
>> 
>>  Bruce
>> 
>> In the MWI the non-locality becomes a common cause effect that can be traced 
>> back to the creation of the entangled spins. As pointed out by Vaidman here:
>> 
>> https://youtu.be/jKGuGptafvo?t=1876 
>> 
>> it's in the ordinary collapse models where there is real problem.
>> 
>> Saibal
> Vaidman seems to be trying to demolish Bohm in this video -- nothing 
> intelligent about any "common cause" effect for Bell-type correlations. It 
> seems that Vaidman is really playing with idea of retro-causality. And such 
> things are orthogonal to many worlds. Indeed, the whole thing seems very 
> confused. The only thing that was clear

Re: Entanglement

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 01:47, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: smitra < smi...@zonnet.nl 
> >
>> 
>> On 22-04-2018 00:18, Brent Meeker wrote:
>> On 4/21/2018 12:42 PM, smitra wrote:
>> 
>> That's then an artifact of invoking an effective collapse of the 
>> wavefunction due to introducing the observer. The correlated two particle 
>> state is either put in by hand or one has shown how it was created. In the 
>> former case one is introducing non-local effects in an ad-hoc way in a 
>> theory that only has local interactions, so there is then nothing to explain 
>> in that case. In the latter case, the entangled state itself results from 
>> the local dynamics, one can put ALice and Bob at far away locations there 
>> and wait until the two particles arrive at their locations. The way the 
>> state vectors of the entire system that now also includes the state vectors 
>> of Alice and Bob themselves evolve, has no nontrivial non-local effects in 
>> them at all.
>> 
>> Sure it does.  The state vector itself is a function of spacelike
>> separate events, which cause it to evolve into orthogonal
>> components...whose statistics violated Bell's inequality.
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> There is no non-locality implied here unless you assume that the dynamics as 
>> predicted by QM is the result of a local hidden variables theory.
>> 
>> Saibal
> 
> There is no need to suggest local (or non-local) hidden variables. The 
> non-locality we are talking about is implied by the quantum state itself -- 
> nothing to do with the dynamics.


But that type of non-locality has never been questioned, neither in the MWI, or 
a fortiori in QM+collapse. But the MWI explains without the need of 
“mysterious” influence-at-a-distance, which would be the case in the 
mono-universe theory, or in Bohm-De Broglie pilot wave theory. Without dynamic 
we have “only” d’Espagnat type of inseparability.

Bruno



> 
> Bruce
> 
> -- 
> 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 
> .

-- 
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: Entanglement

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 00:35, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 6:18:13 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/21/2018 12:42 PM, smitra wrote: 
> > On 20-04-2018 04:54, Brent Meeker wrote: 
> >> On 4/19/2018 7:28 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote: 
> >> 
> >>> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 2:13:20 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>> On 4/19/2018 6:39 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 12:44:04 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>> On 4/19/2018 5:29 PM, smitra wrote: 
>  One can a priori rule out any non-local effects using the fact 
> >>> that 
>  the dynamics as described by the Schrödinger equation is local. 
> >>> So, in 
>  any theory where there is no collapse and everything follows from 
> >>> only 
>  the Schrödinger equation, there cannot be non-local effects 
> >>> 
> >>> The wave-function exists in configuration space so a point in it 
> >>> already 
> >>> refers to multiple points in 3space. 
> >>> 
> >>> Brent 
> >>> 
> >>> I've met WF's with variables of space and time. They don't have 
> >>> multiple 
> >>> points in 3 space. Please elaborate as to your meaning. AG 
> >> 
> >>  The wave function for two particles is a function of six spacial 
> >> coordinates. 
> >> 
> >>  Brent 
> >> 
> >>  OK, simple, but how is this responsive to smitra's comment? AG 
> >> 
> >>  So a measurement on one can, assuming some conserved quantity 
> >> entangling them, will have an effect on the other, even if the all the 
> >> details of measurement and decoherence are included and the 
> >> measurement is treated as Everett does.  It still zeroes out cross 
> >> terms in the density matrix that correspond ot violation of the 
> >> conservation law and that entails changing the wave function at remote 
> >> places. 
> >> 
> >>  Brent 
> > 
> > That's then an artifact of invoking an effective collapse of the 
> > wavefunction due to introducing the observer. The correlated two 
> > particle state is either put in by hand or one has shown how it was 
> > created. In the former case one is introducing non-local effects in an 
> > ad-hoc way in a theory that only has local interactions, so there is 
> > then nothing to explain in that case. In the latter case, the 
> > entangled state itself results from the local dynamics, one can put 
> > ALice and Bob at far away locations there and wait until the two 
> > particles arrive at their locations. The way the state vectors of the 
> > entire system that now also includes the state vectors of Alice and 
> > Bob themselves evolve, has no nontrivial non-local effects in them at 
> > all. 
> 
> Sure it does.  The state vector itself is a function of spacelike 
> separate events, which cause it to evolve into orthogonal 
> components...whose statistics violated Bell's inequality. 
> 
> Brent 
> 
> Aren't you just saying that standard QM, the CI which includes instantaneous 
> collapse, ASSUMES non locality, and THEREFORE Bell's inequality is, or must 
> be violated?  AG 

Yes. That was Einstein critics of Bohr at the Solvay Congress in 1927. EPR was 
a definite means to make that more precise, which led to Bell, then Aspect …

Bruno



> 
> -- 
> 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 
> .

-- 
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: Entanglement

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 20 Apr 2018, at 20:31, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/20/2018 6:43 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com  
> wrote:
>> No, what Bruno wrote was "a superposition of "Iup>IMinus> and (Minus>Iup>", 
>> which I took to mean an attempt to expand the singlet state in two bases 
>> simultaneuosly -- the (|Plus>, |Minus>) base and the (|up>,|down>) base. It 
>> is difficult to see exactly what this would achieve; it seems to be merely a 
>> more complicated base.
>> 
>> Bruce
>> 
>> I think by |minus> he just meant |dn>. AG
> 
> If that's what he did, he's responsible for a lot of confusion.  :-)

It was the singlet state (+ a typo error (my new computer changes the word. For 
example, if I type Sxyz (like with the second combinator axiom. He wrote Sexy 
instead, without telling anything!)).

So be vigilant!

You see, the computer evolves! They get the human  obsessions!

Sorry.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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.