Re: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/26/2018 10:38 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 5:10:46 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 4/26/2018 9:24 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:



On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:43:30 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 4/26/2018 6:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:10:25 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 4/26/2018 4:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 10:25:29 PM UTC, Brent
wrote:



On 4/26/2018 2:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:09:48 PM UTC,
Brent wrote:



On 4/26/2018 7:23 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 4:12:41 AM
UTC, Brent wrote:



On 4/25/2018 7:44 PM, agrays...@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


The Heisenberg Cut is too vague and
ill-defined to shed light on anything, and to
say the MWI is helpful is adding another
layer of confusion. AG


Decoherence is a specific well-defined
physical process and it describes the
splitting of worlds.  There is still some
question whether it entails the Born rule, but
at worst the Born rule remains as a separate
axiom.

Brent


Let's say an electron goes through an SG device.
IIUC, its spin state becomes entangled with the
spin wf's of the device. How do you infer
splitting of worlds from this? AG


I don't.  Why should I?

Brent


I could swear that you wrote above that decoherence
describes the splitting of worlds, so I gave you an
example of decoherence


You didn't give an example of decoherence. Where's the
decoherence in an electron flying through a divergent
magnetic field?

Re: Entanglement

['scerir' via Everything List]

I know. But no information was extracted from the welcher weg photons before 
they were erased. I.e., no consciousness "recorded" which way and then forgot 
the result. I think the act of recording the result, by a consciousness or 
anything else, is inherently irreversible. If no record is made, then erasure 
is perfectly possible. Just knowing that there were welcher weg photons that 
have been erased is not quite the same thing.

Bruce


this paper seems interestig (and also quantitative), a concrete example of the 
relationship between information and interference in quantum systems.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.09442


Measurement-induced decoherence and information in double-slit interference

Joshua Kincaid https://arxiv.org/search?searchtype=author&query=Joshua+Kincaid 
, Kyle McLelland 
https://arxiv.org/search?searchtype=author&query=Kyle+McLelland , Michael 
Zwolak https://arxiv.org/search?searchtype=author&query=Michael+Zwolak

(Submitted on 30 Jun 2016)

> The double slit experiment provides a classic example of both interference 
> and the effect of observation in quantum physics. When particles are sent 
> individually through a pair of slits, a wave-like interference pattern 
> develops, but no such interference is found when one observes which "path" 
> the particles take. We present a model of interference, dephasing, and 
> measurement-induced decoherence in a one-dimensional version of the 
> double-slit experiment. Using this model, we demonstrate how the loss of 
> interference in the system is correlated with the information gain by the 
> measuring apparatus/observer. In doing so, we give a modern account of 
> measurement in this paradigmatic example of quantum physics that is 
> accessible to students taking quantum mechanics at the graduate or senior 
> undergraduate levels.
> 

-- 
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 Friday, April 27, 2018 at 5:38:38 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 5:10:46 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/26/2018 9:24 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:43:30 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/26/2018 6:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:10:25 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 



 On 4/26/2018 4:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 10:25:29 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 4/26/2018 2:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:09:48 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/26/2018 7:23 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 4:12:41 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/25/2018 7:44 PM, agrays...@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
>>>
>>
>> The Heisenberg Cut is too vague and ill-defined to shed light on 
>> anything, and to say the MWI is helpful is adding another layer of 
>> confusion. AG
>>
>>
>> Decoherence is a specific well-defined physical process and it 
>> describes the splitting of worlds.  There is still some question whether 
>> it 
>> entails the Born rule, but at worst the Born rule remains as a separate 
>> axiom.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Let's say an electron goes through an SG device. IIUC, its spin state 
> becomes entangled with the spin wf's of the device. How do you infer 
> splitting of worlds from this? AG
>
>
> I don't.  Why should I?
>
> Brent
>

 I could swear that you wrote above that decoherence describes the 
 splitting of worlds, so I gave you an example of decoherence 


 You didn't give an example of decoherence.  Where's the decoherence in 
 an electron flying through a divergent magnetic field?

 Brent

>>>
>>> That's what I figured you would write and maybe you're correct. I 
>>> thought decoherence means that the wf of the system being measured, gets 
>>> entangled with the wf's of the environment, in this case the SG device. Why 
>>> is this not decoherence, and if it isn't, what is?  TIA, AG
>>>
>>>
>>> Decoherence happens when the particle is detected in one path or the 
>>> other, not when going thru the SG.  It's a classic experiment to show that 
>>> particle wf can be coherently recombined after going through SGs.  So if 
>>> you set up a detector on one leg of the SG then the world splits when there 
>>> is a detection vs no detection.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> I am not considering a singlet state; just an electron passing through a 
>> SG device and being measured, spin up or down. Are you saying no 
>> decoherence in this case? 
>>
>>
>> No.  I just saying when you posed the problem you didn't say anything 
>> about detection.  You just said an electron went through an SG a

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 5:10:46 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/26/2018 9:24 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:43:30 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/26/2018 6:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:10:25 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/26/2018 4:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 10:25:29 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 



 On 4/26/2018 2:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:09:48 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 4/26/2018 7:23 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 4:12:41 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/25/2018 7:44 PM, agrays...@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
>>
>
> The Heisenberg Cut is too vague and ill-defined to shed light on 
> anything, and to say the MWI is helpful is adding another layer of 
> confusion. AG
>
>
> Decoherence is a specific well-defined physical process and it 
> describes the splitting of worlds.  There is still some question whether 
> it 
> entails the Born rule, but at worst the Born rule remains as a separate 
> axiom.
>
> Brent
>

 Let's say an electron goes through an SG device. IIUC, its spin state 
 becomes entangled with the spin wf's of the device. How do you infer 
 splitting of worlds from this? AG


 I don't.  Why should I?

 Brent

>>>
>>> I could swear that you wrote above that decoherence describes the 
>>> splitting of worlds, so I gave you an example of decoherence 
>>>
>>>
>>> You didn't give an example of decoherence.  Where's the decoherence in 
>>> an electron flying through a divergent magnetic field?
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> That's what I figured you would write and maybe you're correct. I thought 
>> decoherence means that the wf of the system being measured, gets entangled 
>> with the wf's of the environment, in this case the SG device. Why is this 
>> not decoherence, and if it isn't, what is?  TIA, AG
>>
>>
>> Decoherence happens when the particle is detected in one path or the 
>> other, not when going thru the SG.  It's a classic experiment to show that 
>> particle wf can be coherently recombined after going through SGs.  So if 
>> you set up a detector on one leg of the SG then the world splits when there 
>> is a detection vs no detection.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I am not considering a singlet state; just an electron passing through a 
> SG device and being measured, spin up or down. Are you saying no 
> decoherence in this case? 
>
>
> No.  I just saying when you posed the problem you didn't say anything 
> about detection.  You just said an electron went through an SG apparatus.
>
> From what I gather from descriptions of decoherence, it occurs when a 
> measurement occurs, and the particle's wf gets entangled with the 
> measurement device. This is a detection, and I think you're saying the 
> world splits

Re: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/26/2018 9:24 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:43:30 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 4/26/2018 6:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:



On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:10:25 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 4/26/2018 4:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 10:25:29 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 4/26/2018 2:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:09:48 PM UTC, Brent
wrote:



On 4/26/2018 7:23 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 4:12:41 AM UTC,
Brent wrote:



On 4/25/2018 7:44 PM, agrays...@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


The Heisenberg Cut is too vague and ill-defined to
shed light on anything, and to say the MWI is
helpful is adding another layer of confusion. AG


Decoherence is a specific well-defined physical
process and it describes the splitting of worlds.
There is still some question whether it entails the
Born rule, but at worst the Born rule remains as a
separate axiom.

Brent


Let's say an electron goes through an SG device. IIUC,
its spin state becomes entangled with the spin wf's of
the device. How do you infer splitting of worlds from
this? AG


I don't.  Why should I?

Brent


I could swear that you wrote above that decoherence
describes the splitting of worlds, so I gave you an example
of decoherence


You didn't give an example of decoherence.  Where's the
decoherence in an electron flying through a divergent
magnetic field?

Brent


That's what I figured you would write and maybe you're correct. I
thought decoherence means that the wf of the system being
measured, gets entangled with the wf's of the environment, in
this case the SG device. Why is this not decoherence, and if it
isn't, what is?  TIA, AG


Decoherence happens when the particle is detected in one path or
the other, not when going thru the SG.  It's a classic experiment
to show that particle wf can be coherently recombined after going
through SGs.  So if you set up a detector on one leg of the SG
then the world splits when there is a d

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 4:24:44 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:43:30 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/26/2018 6:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:10:25 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/26/2018 4:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 10:25:29 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 



 On 4/26/2018 2:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:09:48 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 4/26/2018 7:23 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 4:12:41 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/25/2018 7:44 PM, agrays...@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
>>
>
> The Heisenberg Cut is too vague and ill-defined to shed light on 
> anything, and to say the MWI is helpful is adding another layer of 
> confusion. AG
>
>
> Decoherence is a specific well-defined physical process and it 
> describes the splitting of worlds.  There is still some question whether 
> it 
> entails the Born rule, but at worst the Born rule remains as a separate 
> axiom.
>
> Brent
>

 Let's say an electron goes through an SG device. IIUC, its spin state 
 becomes entangled with the spin wf's of the device. How do you infer 
 splitting of worlds from this? AG


 I don't.  Why should I?

 Brent

>>>
>>> I could swear that you wrote above that decoherence describes the 
>>> splitting of worlds, so I gave you an example of decoherence 
>>>
>>>
>>> You didn't give an example of decoherence.  Where's the decoherence in 
>>> an electron flying through a divergent magnetic field?
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> That's what I figured you would write and maybe you're correct. I thought 
>> decoherence means that the wf of the system being measured, gets entangled 
>> with the wf's of the environment, in this case the SG device. Why is this 
>> not decoherence, and if it isn't, what is?  TIA, AG
>>
>>
>> Decoherence happens when the particle is detected in one path or the 
>> other, not when going thru the SG.  It's a classic experiment to show that 
>> particle wf can be coherently recombined after going through SGs.  So if 
>> you set up a detector on one leg of the SG then the world splits when there 
>> is a detection vs no detection.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I am not considering a singlet state; just an electron passing through a 
> SG device and being measured, spin up or down. Are you saying no 
> decoherence in this case? From what I gather from descriptions of 
> decoherence, it occurs when a measurement occurs, and the particle's wf 
> gets entangled with the measurement device. This is a detection, and I 
> think you're saying the world splits. If so, why would it? If there's no 
> detection for whatever reason, what are we to conclude? I would guess, 
> nothing. AG
>

Maybe you thought I meant an electron flying through an SG device and NOT 

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:43:30 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/26/2018 6:21 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:10:25 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/26/2018 4:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 10:25:29 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/26/2018 2:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:09:48 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 



 On 4/26/2018 7:23 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 4:12:41 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 4/25/2018 7:44 PM, agrays...@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
>

 The Heisenberg Cut is too vague and ill-defined to shed light on 
 anything, and to say the MWI is helpful is adding another layer of 
 confusion. AG


 Decoherence is a specific well-defined physical process and it 
 describes the splitting of worlds.  There is still some question whether 
 it 
 entails the Born rule, but at worst the Born rule remains as a separate 
 axiom.

 Brent

>>>
>>> Let's say an electron goes through an SG device. IIUC, its spin state 
>>> becomes entangled with the spin wf's of the device. How do you infer 
>>> splitting of worlds from this? AG
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't.  Why should I?
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> I could swear that you wrote above that decoherence describes the 
>> splitting of worlds, so I gave you an example of decoherence 
>>
>>
>> You didn't give an example of decoherence.  Where's the decoherence in an 
>> electron flying through a divergent magnetic field?
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> That's what I figured you would write and maybe you're correct. I thought 
> decoherence means that the wf of the system being measured, gets entangled 
> with the wf's of the environment, in this case the SG device. Why is this 
> not decoherence, and if it isn't, what is?  TIA, AG
>
>
> Decoherence happens when the particle is detected in one path or the 
> other, not when going thru the SG.  It's a classic experiment to show that 
> particle wf can be coherently recombined after going through SGs.  So if 
> you set up a detector on one leg of the SG then the world splits when there 
> is a detection vs no detection.
>
> Brent
>

I am not considering a singlet state; just an electron passing through a SG 
device and being measured, spin up or down. Are you saying no decoherence 
in this case? From what I gather from descriptions of decoherence, it 
occurs when a measurement occurs, and the particle's wf gets entangled with 
the measurement device. This is a detection, and I think you're saying the 
world splits. If so, why would it? If there's no detection for whatever 
reason, what are we to conclude? I would guess, nothing. 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 g

Re: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/26/2018 8:02 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

From: *Brent Meeker* 

On 4/26/2018 7:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 4/26/2018 5:55 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

From: *Brent Meeker* 


On 4/26/2018 3:41 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

My point was that if there is a record that a measurement was 
made, something irreversible has been extracted from the 
experiment. If the QC is "conscious", then it has to interact with 
something to make this irreversible record, so its quantum state 
is irreversibly changed. But you are probably right: if there is 
no decoherence, then there is no consciousness, since 
consciousness involves irreversible memory.


There are experiments already performed in which the welcher weg is 
available but is erased, even spacelike relative to detection


I know. But no information was extracted from the welcher weg 
photons before they were erased. I.e., no consciousness "recorded" 
which way and then forgot the result. I think the act of recording 
the result, by a consciousness or anything else, is inherently 
irreversible. If no record is made, then erasure is perfectly 
possible. Just knowing that there were welcher weg photons that have 
been erased is not quite the same thing.


But that's my question: Why isn't it the same? And even if it's not 
how would be know?  The "conscious" quantum computer assures us that 
it not only detected that there was a welcher weg photon but that 
it's weg was known to the "consciousness" of the quantum computer, 
before it was erased.  But why would we believe it?  We already have 
these experiments in which we know the weg was available and could 
have been recorded, but was erased.  So what is the "consciousness" 
that adds a secret-sauce to the experiment?


Good question. I doubt that you can fool quantum mechanics by calling 
it "consciousness". I think in this case the interaction with the 
welcher weg photon would amount to sufficient decoherence -- basically 
information was extracted that was not restored. Also, of course, if 
the QC "forgets" what it did, how can it report on the fact that it 
did anything. How can we believe that it actually knew which slit at 
some point?


This is actually an example of the kind of experiment I've suggested 
Bruno should analyze using his "comp" theory.  It seems sufficiently 
fundamental and dependent on a theory of consciousness and quantum 
mechanics that Bruno's theory should have something to say about it.  
One successful prediction and his Nobel prize will be assured.


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

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Brent Meeker* mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>

On 4/26/2018 7:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 4/26/2018 5:55 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
From: *Brent Meeker* >


On 4/26/2018 3:41 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

My point was that if there is a record that a measurement was made, 
something irreversible has been extracted from the experiment. If 
the QC is "conscious", then it has to interact with something to 
make this irreversible record, so its quantum state is irreversibly 
changed. But you are probably right: if there is no decoherence, 
then there is no consciousness, since consciousness involves 
irreversible memory.


There are experiments already performed in which the welcher weg is 
available but is erased, even spacelike relative to detection


I know. But no information was extracted from the welcher weg photons 
before they were erased. I.e., no consciousness "recorded" which way 
and then forgot the result. I think the act of recording the result, 
by a consciousness or anything else, is inherently irreversible. If 
no record is made, then erasure is perfectly possible. Just knowing 
that there were welcher weg photons that have been erased is not 
quite the same thing.


But that's my question: Why isn't it the same?  And even if it's not 
how would be know?  The "conscious" quantum computer assures us that 
it not only detected that there was a welcher weg photon but that it's 
weg was known to the "consciousness" of the quantum computer, before 
it was erased.  But why would we believe it?  We already have these 
experiments in which we know the weg was available and could have been 
recorded, but was erased.  So what is the "consciousness" that adds a 
secret-sauce to the experiment?


Good question. I doubt that you can fool quantum mechanics by calling it 
"consciousness". I think in this case the interaction with the welcher 
weg photon would amount to sufficient decoherence -- basically 
information was extracted that was not restored. Also, of course, if the 
QC "forgets" what it did, how can it report on the fact that it did 
anything. How can we believe that it actually knew which slit at some point?


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

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/26/2018 7:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 4/26/2018 5:55 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
From: *Brent Meeker* >


On 4/26/2018 3:41 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

My point was that if there is a record that a measurement was made, 
something irreversible has been extracted from the experiment. If 
the QC is "conscious", then it has to interact with something to 
make this irreversible record, so its quantum state is irreversibly 
changed. But you are probably right: if there is no decoherence, 
then there is no consciousness, since consciousness involves 
irreversible memory.


There are experiments already performed in which the welcher weg is 
available but is erased, even spacelike relative to detection


I know. But no information was extracted from the welcher weg photons 
before they were erased. I.e., no consciousness "recorded" which way 
and then forgot the result. I think the act of recording the result, 
by a consciousness or anything else, is inherently irreversible. If no 
record is made, then erasure is perfectly possible. Just knowing that 
there were welcher weg photons that have been erased is not quite the 
same thing.


But that's my question: Why isn't it the same?  And even if it's not how 
would be know?  The "conscious" quantum computer assures us that it not 
only detected that there was a welcher weg photon but that it's weg was 
known to the "consciousness" of the quantum computer, before it was 
erased.  But why would we believe it?  We already have these experiments 
in which we know the weg was available and could have been recorded, but 
was erased.  So what is the "consciousness" that adds a secret-sauce to 
the experiment?


Brent



Bruce



https://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.4348.pdf 

(I wonder if the French appreciated the labeling of their apparatus 
BS-in and BS-out?)


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

[Bruce Kellett]

On 4/26/2018 5:55 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

From: *Brent Meeker* mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>


On 4/26/2018 3:41 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

My point was that if there is a record that a measurement was made, 
something irreversible has been extracted from the experiment. If the 
QC is "conscious", then it has to interact with something to make 
this irreversible record, so its quantum state is irreversibly 
changed. But you are probably right: if there is no decoherence, then 
there is no consciousness, since consciousness involves irreversible 
memory.


There are experiments already performed in which the welcher weg is 
available but is erased, even spacelike relative to detection


I know. But no information was extracted from the welcher weg photons 
before they were erased. I.e., no consciousness "recorded" which way and 
then forgot the result. I think the act of recording the result, by a 
consciousness or anything else, is inherently irreversible. If no record 
is made, then erasure is perfectly possible. Just knowing that there 
were welcher weg photons that have been erased is not quite the same thing.


Bruce



https://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.4348.pdf 

(I wonder if the French appreciated the labeling of their apparatus 
BS-in and BS-out?)


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 4/26/2018 6:21 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:10:25 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 4/26/2018 4:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:



On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 10:25:29 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 4/26/2018 2:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:09:48 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 4/26/2018 7:23 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 4:12:41 AM UTC, Brent
wrote:



On 4/25/2018 7:44 PM, agrays...@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


The Heisenberg Cut is too vague and ill-defined to shed
light on anything, and to say the MWI is helpful is
adding another layer of confusion. AG


Decoherence is a specific well-defined physical process
and it describes the splitting of worlds.  There is
still some question whether it entails the Born rule,
but at worst the Born rule remains as a separate axiom.

Brent


Let's say an electron goes through an SG device. IIUC, its
spin state becomes entangled with the spin wf's of the
device. How do you infer splitting of worlds from this? AG


I don't.  Why should I?

Brent


I could swear that you wrote above that decoherence describes the
splitting of worlds, so I gave you an example of decoherence


You didn't give an example of decoherence.  Where's the
decoherence in an electron flying through a divergent magnetic field?

Brent


That's what I figured you would write and maybe you're correct. I 
thought decoherence means that the wf of the system being measured, 
gets entangled with the wf's of the environment, in this case the SG 
device. Why is this not decoherence, and if it isn't, what is?  TIA, AG


Decoherence happens when the particle is detected in one path or the 
other, not when going thru the SG.  It's a classic experiment to show 
that particle wf can be coherently recombined after going through SGs.  
So if you set up a detector on one leg of the SG then the world splits 
when there is a detection vs no detection.


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 4/26/2018 5:55 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

From: *Brent Meeker* 


On 4/26/2018 3:41 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

From: *John Clark* mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>>


On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 2:02 PM,  wrote:

​ > ​
/ How many times must I remind you that Feynman explained that
very clearly.
/


​ 42.​

​ > ​
/Please repeat it. AG/

I originally sent this on December 14 2017:

David Deutsch proposed a test of Many Worlds about 30 years ago in 
his book "The Ghost In The Atom", but  it would be very difficult 
to perform. The reason it's so difficult to test is not  the Many 
World's theory fault, the reason is that the conventional view says 
that conscious observers obey different laws of physics, many 
worlds says they do not, so to test who's right we need a mind that 
uses quantum properties. Quantum Computers have advanced enormously 
over the last 30 years so I wouldn't be surprised if it or 
something very much like it  is actually performed in the decade or 
two.


An intelligent quantum computer shoots photons at a metal plate one 
at a time that has 2 small slits in it, and then the photons hit a 
photographic plate. Nobody looks at the photographic plate till the 
very end of the experiment. The quantum mind has detectors near 
each slit so it knows which slit the various electrons went 
through. After each photon passes the slits but before they hit the 
photographic plate the quantum mind signs a document saying that it 
has observed each and every photon  and knows  which slit each 
photon went through. It is very important that the document does 
not say which slit any photon went through, it only says that they 
went through one slit and one slit only and the mind has knowledge 
of which one. There is a signed document to this effect for every 
photon it shot.


Now the mind uses quantum erasure to completely destroy its memory 
of which slit any of the photons went through; the only part 
remaining is the document which states that each photon went 
through one and only one slit and the mind (at the time) knew which 
one. Now develop the photographic plate and look at it.  If you see 
interference bands then the many world interpretation is correct. 
If you do not see interference bands then there are no worlds but 
this one and the conventional quantum  interpretation is correct.


This works because in the Copenhagen interpretation when the 
results of a measurement enters the consciousness of an observer 
the wave function collapses, in effect all the universes except one 
disappear without a trace so you get no interference. In the many 
worlds model all the other worlds will converge back into one 
universe because information on which slit the various photons went 
through was the only thing that made one universe different from 
another, so when that was erased they became identical again and 
merged, but their influence will still be felt, you'll see 
indications that the photon went through slot A only and 
indications it went through slot B only, and that's what causes 
interference.


Quantum erasure involves more than just forgetting what happened. 
What about Zurek's "many records in the environment". If you know 
what happened, many traces of that result remain -- even if your 
memory is erased. Deutsch on the wrong track, yet again!


Deutsch knows the difference, and he specifies quantum erasure, which 
implies that the detection of welcher weg  is never classical, i.e. 
it is not decohered into the environment since if it were it could 
not be quantum erased.  Which is the point of my remark that maybe 
all that would be proved is that quantum "detection" can't be 
conscious.  I'm pretty sure consciousness is a purely classical 
phenomenon.  So Deutsch's scheme to detecting welcher-weg but erasing 
the knowledge may retain the interference pattern but just prove that 
quantum knowledge is not conscious...something Borh might well say.


My point was that if there is a record that a measurement was made, 
something irreversible has been extracted from the experiment. If the 
QC is "conscious", then it has to interact with something to make this 
irreversible record, so its quantum state is irreversibly changed. But 
you are probably right: if there is no decoherence, then there is no 
consciousness, since consciousness involves irreversible memory.


There are experiments already performed in which the welcher weg is 
available but is erased, even spacelike relative to detection


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.4348.pdf

(I wonder if the French appreciated the labeling of their apparatus 
BS-in and BS-out?)


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.

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:10:25 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/26/2018 4:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 10:25:29 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/26/2018 2:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:09:48 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/26/2018 7:23 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 4:12:41 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 



 On 4/25/2018 7:44 PM, agrays...@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

>>>
>>> The Heisenberg Cut is too vague and ill-defined to shed light on 
>>> anything, and to say the MWI is helpful is adding another layer of 
>>> confusion. AG
>>>
>>>
>>> Decoherence is a specific well-defined physical process and it describes 
>>> the splitting of worlds.  There is still some question whether it entails 
>>> the Born rule, but at worst the Born rule remains as a separate axiom.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> Let's say an electron goes through an SG device. IIUC, its spin state 
>> becomes entangled with the spin wf's of the device. How do you infer 
>> splitting of worlds from this? AG
>>
>>
>> I don't.  Why should I?
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I could swear that you wrote above that decoherence describes the 
> splitting of worlds, so I gave you an example of decoherence 
>
>
> You didn't give an example of decoherence.  Where's the decoherence in an 
> electron flying through a divergent magnetic field?
>
> Brent
>

That's what I figured you would write and maybe you're correct. I thought 
decoherence means that the wf of the system being measured, gets entangled 
with the wf's of the environment, in this case the SG device. Why is this 
not decoherence, and if it isn't, what is?  TIA, AG

>
> and asked how it describes the splitting of worlds. If YOU don't infer it, 
> then someone you highly respect does. 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 4/26/2018 5:31 PM, smitra wrote:
you can use qubits to represent spins and let some AI generated by a 
quantum computer measure the x-component of a spin polarized in the 
positive z-direction and then play this same game of erasing the 
memory of the AI


But there's the rub.  What does it mean to have quantum computer measure 
something that is then quantum erased?  How is that different from 
simply not measuring it and erasing the data...which has already been 
done.  What is that extra thing the quantum computer does that allows it 
to say, "Yes I measured which way it went."  and why should we believe 
it?  I think such a thing may well be impossible to determine.


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 4/26/2018 4:14 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 10:25:29 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 4/26/2018 2:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:



On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:09:48 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 4/26/2018 7:23 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 4:12:41 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 4/25/2018 7:44 PM, agrays...@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


The Heisenberg Cut is too vague and ill-defined to shed
light on anything, and to say the MWI is helpful is adding
another layer of confusion. AG


Decoherence is a specific well-defined physical process and
it describes the splitting of worlds. There is still some
question whether it entails the Born rule, but at worst the
Born rule remains as a separate axiom.

Brent


Let's say an electron goes through an SG device. IIUC, its spin
state becomes entangled with the spin wf's of the device. How do
you infer splitting of worlds from this? AG


I don't.  Why should I?

Brent


I could swear that you wrote above that decoherence describes the 
splitting of worlds, so I gave you an example of decoherence


You didn't give an example of decoherence.  Where's the decoherence in 
an electron flying through a divergent magnetic field?


Brent

and asked how it describes the splitting of worlds. If YOU don't infer 
it, then someone you highly respect does. 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

[Samiya Illias]

This should be of interest:

Allah, the fāṭir (فَاطِر) of the Skies and Earth



*Excerpt:*
...
String Theory postulates that the Universe is a symphony, composed of
vibrating strings (the most fundamental one-dimensional objects, as opposed
to point-like particles).

 In *Surah Fatir (**فَاطِر**)*, we learn that all of creation is being
upheld in order by Allah alone:

قُلْ أَرَأَيْتُمْ شُرَكَاءَكُمُ الَّذِينَ تَدْعُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ
أَرُونِي مَاذَا خَلَقُوا مِنَ الْأَرْضِ أَمْ لَهُمْ شِرْكٌ فِي
السَّمَاوَاتِ أَمْ آتَيْنَاهُمْ كِتَابًا فَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَيِّنَتٍ مِّنْهُ
بَلْ إِن يَعِدُ الظَّالِمُونَ بَعْضُهُم بَعْضًا إِلَّا غُرُورًا
*إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُمْسِكُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ أَن تَزُولَا وَلَئِن
زَالَتَا إِنْ أَمْسَكَهُمَا مِنْ أَحَدٍ مِّن بَعْدِهِ إِنَّهُ كَانَ
حَلِيمًا غَفُورًا*

Say, "Have you seen your partners those whom you call besides Allah?" Show
Me what they have created from the earth, or for them (is) a share in the
heavens. Or have We given them a Book so they (are) on a clear proof
therefrom? Nay, not promise the wrongdoers some of them (to) others except
delusion.
*Indeed, Allah upholds the heavens and the earth, lest they cease. And if
they should cease, not can uphold them any one after Him. Indeed, He is
Most Forbearing, Oft-Forgiving.*
[Al-Quran 35:40 -41
]

The earth and skies are then indeed a symphony of Allah's words, through
which He brings everything into being, and maintains everything on a
constant, continuous basis.
...



On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 6:45 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 4/26/2018 3:41 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> From: John Clark 
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 2:02 PM,  wrote:
>
> ​ > ​
>>
>> * How many times must I remind you that Feynman explained that very
>> clearly. *
>>
>
> ​ 42.​
>
>
> ​ > ​
>> *Please repeat it. AG*
>>
>
> I originally sent this on December 14 2017:
>
> David Deutsch proposed a test of Many Worlds about 30 years ago in his
> book "The Ghost In The Atom", but  it would be very difficult to perform.
> The reason it's so difficult to test is not  the Many World's theory fault,
> the reason is that the conventional view says that conscious observers obey
> different laws of physics, many worlds says they do not, so to test who's
> right we need a mind that uses quantum properties. Quantum Computers have
> advanced enormously over the last 30 years so I wouldn't be surprised if it
> or something very much like it  is actually performed in the decade or two.
>
> An intelligent quantum computer shoots photons at a metal plate one at a
> time that has 2 small slits in it, and then the photons hit a photographic
> plate. Nobody looks at the photographic plate till the very end of the
> experiment.  The quantum mind has detectors near each slit so it knows
> which slit the various electrons went through. After each photon passes the
> slits but before they hit the photographic plate the quantum mind signs a
> document saying that it has observed each and every photon  and knows
>  which slit each photon went through. It is very important that the
> document does not say which slit any photon went through, it only says that
> they went through one slit and one slit only and the mind has knowledge of
> which one. There is a signed document to this effect for every photon it
> shot.
>
> Now the mind uses quantum erasure to completely destroy its memory of
> which slit any of the photons went through; the only part remaining is the
> document which states that each photon went through one and only one slit
> and the mind (at the time) knew which one. Now develop the photographic
> plate and look at it.  If you see interference bands then the many world
> interpretation is correct. If you do not see interference bands then there
> are no worlds but this one and the conventional quantum  interpretation is
> correct.
>
> This works because in the Copenhagen interpretation when the results of a
> measurement enters the consciousness of an observer the wave function
> collapses, in effect all the universes except one disappear without a trace
> so you get no interference. In the many worlds model all the other worlds
> will converge back into one universe because information on which slit the
> various photons went through was the only thing that made one universe
> different from another, so when that was erased they became identical again
> and merged, but their influence will still be felt, you'll see indications
> that the photon went through slot A only and indications it went through
> slot B only, and that's what causes interference.
>
>
> Quantum erasure involves more than just forgetting what happened. What
> about Zurek's "many records in the environment". If you know what happened,
> many traces of that result remain -- even if your memory is erased. Deutsch
> on the wron

Re: Entanglement

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Brent Meeker* mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>


On 4/26/2018 3:41 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

From: *John Clark* mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>>


On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 2:02 PM, > wrote:


​ > ​
/ How many times must I remind you that Feynman explained that
very clearly.
/


​ 42.​

​ > ​
/Please repeat it. AG/

I originally sent this on December 14 2017:

David Deutsch proposed a test of Many Worlds about 30 years ago in 
his book "The Ghost In The Atom", but  it would be very difficult to 
perform. The reason it's so difficult to test is not  the Many 
World's theory fault, the reason is that the conventional view says 
that conscious observers obey different laws of physics, many worlds 
says they do not, so to test who's right we need a mind that uses 
quantum properties. Quantum Computers have advanced enormously over 
the last 30 years so I wouldn't be surprised if it or something very 
much like it  is actually performed in the decade or two.


An intelligent quantum computer shoots photons at a metal plate one 
at a time that has 2 small slits in it, and then the photons hit a 
photographic plate. Nobody looks at the photographic plate till the 
very end of the experiment.  The quantum mind has detectors near 
each slit so it knows which slit the various electrons went through. 
After each photon passes the slits but before they hit the 
photographic plate the quantum mind signs a document saying that it 
has observed each and every photon  and knows  which slit each 
photon went through. It is very important that the document does not 
say which slit any photon went through, it only says that they went 
through one slit and one slit only and the mind has knowledge of 
which one. There is a signed document to this effect for every 
photon it shot.


Now the mind uses quantum erasure to completely destroy its memory 
of which slit any of the photons went through; the only part 
remaining is the document which states that each photon went through 
one and only one slit and the mind (at the time) knew which one. Now 
develop the photographic plate and look at it.  If you see 
interference bands then the many world interpretation is correct. If 
you do not see interference bands then there are no worlds but this 
one and the conventional quantum  interpretation is correct.


This works because in the Copenhagen interpretation when the results 
of a measurement enters the consciousness of an observer the wave 
function collapses, in effect all the universes except one disappear 
without a trace so you get no interference. In the many worlds model 
all the other worlds will converge back into one universe because 
information on which slit the various photons went through was the 
only thing that made one universe different from another, so when 
that was erased they became identical again and merged, but their 
influence will still be felt, you'll see indications that the photon 
went through slot A only and indications it went through slot B 
only, and that's what causes interference.


Quantum erasure involves more than just forgetting what happened. 
What about Zurek's "many records in the environment". If you know 
what happened, many traces of that result remain -- even if your 
memory is erased. Deutsch on the wrong track, yet again!


Deutsch knows the difference, and he specifies quantum erasure, which 
implies that the detection of welcher weg  is never classical, i.e. it 
is not decohered into the environment since if it were it could not be 
quantum erased.  Which is the point of my remark that maybe all that 
would be proved is that quantum "detection" can't be conscious.  I'm 
pretty sure consciousness is a purely classical phenomenon.  So 
Deutsch's scheme to detecting welcher-weg but erasing the knowledge 
may retain the interference pattern but just prove that quantum 
knowledge is not conscious...something Borh might well say.


My point was that if there is a record that a measurement was made, 
something irreversible has been extracted from the experiment. If the QC 
is "conscious", then it has to interact with something to make this 
irreversible record, so its quantum state is irreversibly changed. But 
you are probably right: if there is no decoherence, then there is no 
consciousness, since consciousness involves irreversible memory.


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

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/26/2018 3:41 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

From: *John Clark* 


On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 2:02 PM,  wrote:

​ > ​
/ How many times must I remind you that Feynman explained that
very clearly.
/


​ 42.​

​ > ​
/Please repeat it. AG/

I originally sent this on December 14 2017:

David Deutsch proposed a test of Many Worlds about 30 years ago in 
his book "The Ghost In The Atom", but  it would be very difficult to 
perform. The reason it's so difficult to test is not  the Many 
World's theory fault, the reason is that the conventional view says 
that conscious observers obey different laws of physics, many worlds 
says they do not, so to test who's right we need a mind that uses 
quantum properties. Quantum Computers have advanced enormously over 
the last 30 years so I wouldn't be surprised if it or something very 
much like it  is actually performed in the decade or two.


An intelligent quantum computer shoots photons at a metal plate one 
at a time that has 2 small slits in it, and then the photons hit a 
photographic plate. Nobody looks at the photographic plate till the 
very end of the experiment.  The quantum mind has detectors near each 
slit so it knows which slit the various electrons went through. After 
each photon passes the slits but before they hit the photographic 
plate the quantum mind signs a document saying that it has observed 
each and every photon  and knows  which slit each photon went 
through. It is very important that the document does not say which 
slit any photon went through, it only says that they went through one 
slit and one slit only and the mind has knowledge of which one. There 
is a signed document to this effect for every photon it shot.


Now the mind uses quantum erasure to completely destroy its memory of 
which slit any of the photons went through; the only part remaining 
is the document which states that each photon went through one and 
only one slit and the mind (at the time) knew which one. Now develop 
the photographic plate and look at it.  If you see interference bands 
then the many world interpretation is correct. If you do not see 
interference bands then there are no worlds but this one and the 
conventional quantum  interpretation is correct.


This works because in the Copenhagen interpretation when the results 
of a measurement enters the consciousness of an observer the wave 
function collapses, in effect all the universes except one disappear 
without a trace so you get no interference. In the many worlds model 
all the other worlds will converge back into one universe because 
information on which slit the various photons went through was the 
only thing that made one universe different from another, so when 
that was erased they became identical again and merged, but their 
influence will still be felt, you'll see indications that the photon 
went through slot A only and indications it went through slot B only, 
and that's what causes interference.


Quantum erasure involves more than just forgetting what happened. What 
about Zurek's "many records in the environment". If you know what 
happened, many traces of that result remain -- even if your memory is 
erased. Deutsch on the wrong track, yet again!


Deutsch knows the difference, and he specifies quantum erasure, which 
implies that the detection of welcher weg  is never classical, i.e. it 
is not decohered into the environment since if it were it could not be 
quantum erased.  Which is the point of my remark that maybe all that 
would be proved is that quantum "detection" can't be conscious.  I'm 
pretty sure consciousness is a purely classical phenomenon.  So 
Deutsch's scheme to detecting welcher-weg but erasing the knowledge may 
retain the interference pattern but just prove that quantum knowledge is 
not conscious...something Borh might well say.


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

[Bruce Kellett]

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


On 27-04-2018 00:41, Bruce Kellett wrote:

From: JOHN CLARK mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>>

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 2:02 PM, mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> wrote:

​ > ​ How many times must I remind you that Feynman explained
that very clearly.


​ 42.​

​ > ​ _Please repeat it. AG_


I originally sent this on December 14 2017:

David Deutsch proposed a test of Many Worlds about 30 years ago in
his book "The Ghost In The Atom", but it would be very
difficult to
perform. The reason it's so difficult to test is not the Many
World's theory fault, the reason is that the conventional view
says
that conscious observers obey different laws of physics, many
worlds
says they do not, so to test who's right we need a mind that uses
quantum properties. Quantum Computers have advanced enormously
over
the last 30 years so I wouldn't be surprised if it or
something very
much like it is actually performed in the decade or two.

An intelligent quantum computer shoots photons at a metal
plate one
at a time that has 2 small slits in it, and then the photons hit a
photographic plate. Nobody looks at the photographic plate
till the
very end of the experiment. The quantum mind has detectors near
each slit so it knows which slit the various electrons went
through.
After each photon passes the slits but before they hit the
photographic plate the quantum mind signs a document saying
that it
has observed each and every photon and knows which slit each
photon went through. It is very important that the document
does not
say which slit any photon went through, it only says that they
went
through one slit and one slit only and the mind has knowledge of
which one. There is a signed document to this effect for every
photon it shot.

Now the mind uses quantum erasure to completely destroy its memory
of which slit any of the photons went through; the only part
remaining is the document which states that each photon went
through
one and only one slit and the mind (at the time) knew which
one. Now
develop the photographic plate and look at it. If you see
interference bands then the many world interpretation is
correct. If
you do not see interference bands then there are no worlds but
this
one and the conventional quantum interpretation is correct.

This works because in the Copenhagen interpretation when the
results of a measurement enters the consciousness of an
observer the
wave function collapses, in effect all the universes except one
disappear without a trace so you get no interference. In the many
worlds model all the other worlds will converge back into one
universe because information on which slit the various photons
went
through was the only thing that made one universe different from
another, so when that was erased they became identical again and
merged, but their influence will still be felt, you'll see
indications that the photon went through slot A only and
indications
it went through slot B only, and that's what causes interference.


 Quantum erasure involves more than just forgetting what happened.
What about Zurek's "many records in the environment". If you know what
happened, many traces of that result remain -- even if your memory is
erased. Deutsch on the wrong track, yet again!

 Bruce


Deutsch is right, because your objection is irrelevant for a thought 
experiment. Deutsch formulated his thought experiment before the 
concept of quantum computers was proposed, and you can now just as 
well formulate an equivalent thought experiment where decoherence is 
completely contained. E.g. you can use qubits to represent spins and 
let some AI generated by a quantum computer measure the x-component of 
a spin polarized in the positive z-direction and then play this same 
game of erasing the memory of the AI about the measurement result, 
except the memory that the measurement was carried out. The transform 
back to the state that is the same as the initial state except for the 
presence of a record about the measurement having been performed, can 
be shown to be a unitary transform.


Saibal


If a record that a measurement was made is preserved then decoherence 
has not been completely contained. Thought experiments must obey all 
known physical laws. The unitary transformation you mention is not a 
complete reversal of the experiment.


Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything Li

Re: Entanglement

[smitra]

On 27-04-2018 00:41, Bruce Kellett wrote:

From: JOHN CLARK 


On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 2:02 PM,  wrote:


​ > ​ How many times must I remind you that Feynman explained
that very clearly.


​ 42.​


​ > ​ _Please repeat it. AG_


I originally sent this on December 14 2017:

David Deutsch proposed a test of Many Worlds about 30 years ago in
his book "The Ghost In The Atom", but it would be very difficult to
perform. The reason it's so difficult to test is not the Many
World's theory fault, the reason is that the conventional view says
that conscious observers obey different laws of physics, many worlds
says they do not, so to test who's right we need a mind that uses
quantum properties. Quantum Computers have advanced enormously over
the last 30 years so I wouldn't be surprised if it or something very
much like it is actually performed in the decade or two.

An intelligent quantum computer shoots photons at a metal plate one
at a time that has 2 small slits in it, and then the photons hit a
photographic plate. Nobody looks at the photographic plate till the
very end of the experiment. The quantum mind has detectors near
each slit so it knows which slit the various electrons went through.
After each photon passes the slits but before they hit the
photographic plate the quantum mind signs a document saying that it
has observed each and every photon and knows which slit each
photon went through. It is very important that the document does not
say which slit any photon went through, it only says that they went
through one slit and one slit only and the mind has knowledge of
which one. There is a signed document to this effect for every
photon it shot.

Now the mind uses quantum erasure to completely destroy its memory
of which slit any of the photons went through; the only part
remaining is the document which states that each photon went through
one and only one slit and the mind (at the time) knew which one. Now
develop the photographic plate and look at it. If you see
interference bands then the many world interpretation is correct. If
you do not see interference bands then there are no worlds but this
one and the conventional quantum interpretation is correct.

This works because in the Copenhagen interpretation when the
results of a measurement enters the consciousness of an observer the
wave function collapses, in effect all the universes except one
disappear without a trace so you get no interference. In the many
worlds model all the other worlds will converge back into one
universe because information on which slit the various photons went
through was the only thing that made one universe different from
another, so when that was erased they became identical again and
merged, but their influence will still be felt, you'll see
indications that the photon went through slot A only and indications
it went through slot B only, and that's what causes interference.


 Quantum erasure involves more than just forgetting what happened.
What about Zurek's "many records in the environment". If you know what
happened, many traces of that result remain -- even if your memory is
erased. Deutsch on the wrong track, yet again!

 Bruce


Deutsch is right, because your objection is irrelevant for a thought 
experiment. Deutsch formulated his thought experiment before the concept 
of quantum computers was proposed, and you can now just as well 
formulate an equivalent thought experiment where decoherence is 
completely contained. E.g. you can use qubits to represent spins and let 
some AI generated by a quantum computer measure the x-component of a 
spin polarized in the positive z-direction and then play this same game 
of erasing the memory of the AI about the measurement result, except the 
memory that the measurement was carried out. The transform back to the 
state that is the same as the initial state except for the presence of a 
record about the measurement having been performed, can be shown to be a 
unitary transform.


Saibal



 --
 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
[1].
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [2].


Links:
--
[1] https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
[2] 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

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 10:25:29 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/26/2018 2:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:09:48 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/26/2018 7:23 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 4:12:41 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/25/2018 7:44 PM, agrays...@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
>>>
>>
>> The Heisenberg Cut is too vague and ill-defined to shed light on 
>> anything, and to say the MWI is helpful is adding another layer of 
>> confusion. AG
>>
>>
>> Decoherence is a specific well-defined physical process and it describes 
>> the splitting of worlds.  There is still some question whether it entails 
>> the Born rule, but at worst the Born rule remains as a separate axiom.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Let's say an electron goes through an SG device. IIUC, its spin state 
> becomes entangled with the spin wf's of the device. How do you infer 
> splitting of worlds from this? AG
>
>
> I don't.  Why should I?
>
> Brent
>

I could swear that you wrote above that decoherence describes the splitting 
of worlds, so I gave you an example of decoherence and asked how it 
describes the splitting of worlds. If YOU don't infer it, then someone you 
highly respect does. 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: *John Clark* mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>>


On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 2:02 PM, > wrote:


​ > ​
/ How many times must I remind you that Feynman explained that
very clearly.
/


​ 42.​

​ > ​
/Please repeat it. AG/

I originally sent this on December 14 2017:

David Deutsch proposed a test of Many Worlds about 30 years ago in his 
book "The Ghost In The Atom", but  it would be very difficult to 
perform. The reason it's so difficult to test is not  the Many World's 
theory fault, the reason is that the conventional view says that 
conscious observers obey different laws of physics, many worlds says 
they do not, so to test who's right we need a mind that uses quantum 
properties. Quantum Computers have advanced enormously over the last 
30 years so I wouldn't be surprised if it or something very much like 
it  is actually performed in the decade or two.


An intelligent quantum computer shoots photons at a metal plate one at 
a time that has 2 small slits in it, and then the photons hit a 
photographic plate. Nobody looks at the photographic plate till the 
very end of the experiment.  The quantum mind has detectors near each 
slit so it knows which slit the various electrons went through. After 
each photon passes the slits but before they hit the photographic 
plate the quantum mind signs a document saying that it has observed 
each and every photon  and knows  which slit each photon went through. 
It is very important that the document does not say which slit any 
photon went through, it only says that they went through one slit and 
one slit only and the mind has knowledge of which one. There is a 
signed document to this effect for every photon it shot.


Now the mind uses quantum erasure to completely destroy its memory of 
which slit any of the photons went through; the only part remaining is 
the document which states that each photon went through one and only 
one slit and the mind (at the time) knew which one. Now develop the 
photographic plate and look at it.  If you see interference bands then 
the many world interpretation is correct. If you do not see 
interference bands then there are no worlds but this one and the 
conventional quantum  interpretation is correct.


This works because in the Copenhagen interpretation when the results 
of a measurement enters the consciousness of an observer the wave 
function collapses, in effect all the universes except one disappear 
without a trace so you get no interference. In the many worlds model 
all the other worlds will converge back into one universe because 
information on which slit the various photons went through was the 
only thing that made one universe different from another, so when that 
was erased they became identical again and merged, but their influence 
will still be felt, you'll see indications that the photon went 
through slot A only and indications it went through slot B only, and 
that's what causes interference.


Quantum erasure involves more than just forgetting what happened. What 
about Zurek's "many records in the environment". If you know what 
happened, many traces of that result remain -- even if your memory is 
erased. Deutsch on the wrong track, yet again!


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

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/26/2018 2:33 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:09:48 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 4/26/2018 7:23 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:



On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 4:12:41 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 4/25/2018 7:44 PM, agrays...@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


The Heisenberg Cut is too vague and ill-defined to shed light on
anything, and to say the MWI is helpful is adding another layer
of confusion. AG


Decoherence is a specific well-defined physical process and it
describes the splitting of worlds.  There is still some question
whether it entails the Born rule, but at worst the Born rule
remains as a separate axiom.

Brent


Let's say an electron goes through an SG device. IIUC, its spin state 
becomes entangled with the spin wf's of the device. How do you infer 
splitting of worlds from this? AG


I don't.  Why should I?

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 4/26/2018 12:12 PM, John Clark wrote:


On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 2:02 PM, > wrote:


​> ​
/ How many times must I remind you that Feynman explained that
very clearly.
/


​42.​

​> ​
/Please repeat it. AG/

I originally sent this on December 14 2017:

David Deutsch proposed a test of Many Worlds about 30 years ago in his 
book "The Ghost In The Atom", but  it would be very difficult to 
perform. The reason it's so difficult to test is not  the Many World's 
theory fault, the reason is that the conventional view says that 
conscious observers obey different laws of physics, many worlds says 
they do not, so to test who's right we need a mind that uses quantum 
properties. Quantum Computers have advanced enormously over the last 
30 years so I wouldn't be surprised if it or something very much like 
it  is actually performed in the decade or two.


An intelligent quantum computer shoots photons at a metal plate one at 
a time that has 2 small slits in it, and then the photons hit a 
photographic plate. Nobody looks at the photographic plate till the 
very end of the experiment.  The quantum mind has detectors near each 
slit so it knows which slit the various electrons went through. After 
each photon passes the slits but before they hit the photographic 
plate the quantum mind signs a document saying that it has observed 
each and every photon  and knows  which slit each photon went through. 
It is very important that the document does not say which slit any 
photon went through, it only says that they went through one slit and 
one slit only and the mind has knowledge of which one. There is a 
signed document to this effect for every photon it shot.


Now the mind uses quantum erasure to completely destroy its memory of 
which slit any of the photons went through; the only part remaining is 
the document which states that each photon went through one and only 
one slit and the mind (at the time) knew which one. Now develop the 
photographic plate and look at it. If you see interference bands then 
the many world interpretation is correct. If you do not see 
interference bands then there are no worlds but this one and the 
conventional quantum  interpretation is correct.


Or it's proven that a quantum computer is not conscious.

Brent



This works because in the Copenhagen interpretation when the results 
of a measurement enters the consciousness of an observer the wave 
function collapses, in effect all the universes except one disappear 
without a trace so you get no interference. In the many worlds model 
all the other worlds will converge back into one universe because 
information on which slit the various photons went through was the 
only thing that made one universe different from another, so when that 
was erased they became identical again and merged, but their influence 
will still be felt, you'll see indications that the photon went 
through slot A only and indications it went through slot B only, and 
that's what causes interference.

​

 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.


--
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 9:09:48 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/26/2018 7:23 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 4:12:41 AM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/25/2018 7:44 PM, agrays...@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
>>
>
> The Heisenberg Cut is too vague and ill-defined to shed light on anything, 
> and to say the MWI is helpful is adding another layer of confusion. AG
>
>
> Decoherence is a specific well-defined physical process and it describes 
> the splitting of worlds.  There is still some question whether it entails 
> the Born rule, but at worst the Born rule remains as a separate axiom.
>
> Brent
>

Let's say an electron goes through an SG device. IIUC, its spin state 
becomes entangled with the spin wf's of the device. How do you infer 
splitting of worlds from this? 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 4/26/2018 7:23 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 4:12:41 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 4/25/2018 7:44 PM, agrays...@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


The Heisenberg Cut is too vague and ill-defined to shed light on 
anything, and to say the MWI is helpful is adding another layer of 
confusion. AG


Decoherence is a specific well-defined physical process and it describes 
the splitting of worlds.  There is still some question whether it 
entails the Born rule, but at worst the Born rule remains as a separate 
axiom.


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 of macro objects

[Brent Meeker]

NEAT!   Maintaining entanglement for that long should allow testing 
whether the entanglement persists over different gravitational potentials.


Brent

On 4/26/2018 4:42 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
A news story from the Australian ABC shows that it is not just photons 
or silver atoms that can become entangled. This is interesting 
stuff..



http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-04-26/quantum-physics-entanglement-shown-massive-objects-first-time/9687076 



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

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 7:12:31 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 2:02 PM, > 
> wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>>
>> * How many times must I remind you that Feynman explained that very 
>> clearly.*
>>
>
> ​42.​
>  
>
> ​> ​
>> *Please repeat it. AG*
>>
>  
> I originally sent this on December 14 2017: 
>
> David Deutsch proposed a test of Many Worlds about 30 years ago in his 
> book "The Ghost In The Atom", but  it would be very difficult to perform. 
> The reason it's so difficult to test is not  the Many World's theory fault, 
> the reason is that the conventional view says that conscious observers obey 
> different laws of physics, many worlds says they do not, so to test who's 
> right we need a mind that uses quantum properties. Quantum Computers have 
> advanced enormously over the last 30 years so I wouldn't be surprised if it 
> or something very much like it  is actually performed in the decade or two.
>
> An intelligent quantum computer shoots photons at a metal plate one at a 
> time that has 2 small slits in it, and then the photons hit a photographic 
> plate. Nobody looks at the photographic plate till the very end of the 
> experiment.  The quantum mind has detectors near each slit so it knows 
> which slit the various electrons went through. After each photon passes the 
> slits but before they hit the photographic plate the quantum mind signs a 
> document saying that it has observed each and every photon  and knows 
>  which slit each photon went through. It is very important that the 
> document does not say which slit any photon went through, it only says that 
> they went through one slit and one slit only and the mind has knowledge of 
> which one. There is a signed document to this effect for every photon it 
> shot.
>
> Now the mind uses quantum erasure to completely destroy its memory of 
> which slit any of the photons went through; the only part remaining is the 
> document which states that each photon went through one and only one slit 
> and the mind (at the time) knew which one. Now develop the photographic 
> plate and look at it.  If you see interference bands then the many world 
> interpretation is correct. If you do not see interference bands then there 
> are no worlds but this one and the conventional quantum  interpretation is 
> correct. 
>
> This works because in the Copenhagen interpretation when the results of a 
> measurement enters the consciousness of an observer the wave function 
> collapses, in effect all the universes except one disappear without a trace 
> so you get no interference. In the many worlds model all the other worlds 
> will converge back into one universe because information on which slit the 
> various photons went through was the only thing that made one universe 
> different from another, so when that was erased they became identical again 
> and merged, but their influence will still be felt, you'll see indications 
> that the photon went through slot A only and indications it went through 
> slot B only, and that's what causes interference.  
> ​
>
>  John K Clark
>

Let's see what Bruce thinks of your test. Suppose we just assume detectors 
that watch each slit, and record which slit each photon goes through, and 
later we see no interference pattern -- which I think is what happens. What 
does this say about the MWI? 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

[John Clark]

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 2:02 PM,  wrote:

​> ​
>
> * How many times must I remind you that Feynman explained that very
> clearly.*
>

​42.​


​> ​
> *Please repeat it. AG*
>

I originally sent this on December 14 2017:

David Deutsch proposed a test of Many Worlds about 30 years ago in his book
"The Ghost In The Atom", but  it would be very difficult to perform. The
reason it's so difficult to test is not  the Many World's theory fault, the
reason is that the conventional view says that conscious observers obey
different laws of physics, many worlds says they do not, so to test who's
right we need a mind that uses quantum properties. Quantum Computers have
advanced enormously over the last 30 years so I wouldn't be surprised if it
or something very much like it  is actually performed in the decade or two.

An intelligent quantum computer shoots photons at a metal plate one at a
time that has 2 small slits in it, and then the photons hit a photographic
plate. Nobody looks at the photographic plate till the very end of the
experiment.  The quantum mind has detectors near each slit so it knows
which slit the various electrons went through. After each photon passes the
slits but before they hit the photographic plate the quantum mind signs a
document saying that it has observed each and every photon  and knows
 which slit each photon went through. It is very important that the
document does not say which slit any photon went through, it only says that
they went through one slit and one slit only and the mind has knowledge of
which one. There is a signed document to this effect for every photon it
shot.

Now the mind uses quantum erasure to completely destroy its memory of which
slit any of the photons went through; the only part remaining is the
document which states that each photon went through one and only one slit
and the mind (at the time) knew which one. Now develop the photographic
plate and look at it.  If you see interference bands then the many world
interpretation is correct. If you do not see interference bands then there
are no worlds but this one and the conventional quantum  interpretation is
correct.

This works because in the Copenhagen interpretation when the results of a
measurement enters the consciousness of an observer the wave function
collapses, in effect all the universes except one disappear without a trace
so you get no interference. In the many worlds model all the other worlds
will converge back into one universe because information on which slit the
various photons went through was the only thing that made one universe
different from another, so when that was erased they became identical again
and merged, but their influence will still be felt, you'll see indications
that the photon went through slot A only and indications it went through
slot B only, and that's what causes interference.
​

 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 Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 5:39:34 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 7:55 PM, > wrote
>
>> *> 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?*
>
> What has been gained is that in the MWI you don’t have to explain exactly 
> what a observation is
>

Aren't observations made in the MWI? Must be a new version you just 
invented. Also, as I have repeatedly stated, no need to bring in 
consciousness to QM. How many times must I remind you that Feynman 
explained that very clearly. AG
 

> or how consciousness works because they have nothing to due with it. We 
> assume the fundamental laws of physics are the same for matter that is 
> conscious and matter that is not, the Schrodinger wave equation says 
> nothing about it collapsing when a “measurement is observed” (whatever that 
> means), it was just stuck in there by the Copenhagen people.
>
>> > *The MWI has no testable consequences*
>
> That is not true. You demanded I provide such a test before and I did so 
> on a post to this list on December 14 2017. At the time your only comment 
> was "Never heard this before".
>

Please repeat it. AG
 

> *> Even one copy of an observer with same history as "original" observer 
>> is too much for me.*
>
> That could be but the universe doesn’t care if you like it or not.
>

It's a question of ornate or not, or in good taste or not. Boils down maybe 
to Occam's Razor. AG 

> 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: What is a Löbian machine/number/combinator

[John Clark]

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:18 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​> *​*
> *If you have an argument against step 3 just show it.*
>

​*FOR GODS SAKE *
You want to go back years to day one when this entire idiotic conversation
started and rehash it all over again, but I'd rather watch paint dry.

 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

[John Clark]

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 7:55 PM,  wrote

> *> 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?*

What has been gained is that in the MWI you don’t have to explain exactly
what a observation is or how consciousness works because they have nothing
to due with it. We assume the fundamental laws of physics are the same for
matter that is conscious and matter that is not, the Schrodinger wave
equation says nothing about it collapsing when a “measurement is observed”
(whatever that means), it was just stuck in there by the Copenhagen people.

> > *The MWI has no testable consequences*

That is not true. You demanded I provide such a test before and I did so on
a post to this list on December 14 2017. At the time your only comment was
"Never heard this before".

> *> Even one copy of an observer with same history as "original" observer
> is too much for me.*

That could be but the universe doesn’t care if you like it or not.

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: Disclosure Project

[agrayson2000]

Biography of Brigadier General Arthur Ernest Exon

http://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/Display/Article/104819/brigadier-general-arthur-ernest-exon/

Note that he had a responsible position at Wright Patterson AFB at time of 
Roswell incident. Later, in 1964, he was appointed commander of the base. 
Interesting history; 135 combat missions over North Africa and Southern 
France, shot down, prisoner of war in Germany. Heavy dude. Now deceased 

Here's what he said about Roswell Incident:

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Exon.html



-- 
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
>

*Not nonsense IMO. Since we OBSERVE the singlet subsystems in different 
spatial locations and yet they are "non separable", points to a major 
issue; either Bell's Theorem is incorrect, OR misinterpreted, OR our 
present concept of space is fundamentally deficient. 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

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 4:12:41 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/25/2018 7:44 PM, agrays...@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
>

The Heisenberg Cut is too vague and ill-defined to shed light on anything, 
and to say the MWI is helpful is adding another layer of confusion. 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.

Entanglement of macro objects

[Bruce Kellett]

A news story from the Australian ABC shows that it is not just photons 
or silver atoms that can become entangled. This is interesting stuff..



http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-04-26/quantum-physics-entanglement-shown-massive-objects-first-time/9687076

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: What is a Löbian machine/number/combinator

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 23 Apr 2018, at 16:14, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 7:09 AM, Telmo Menezes  > wrote:
> 
> > The above is about how Bruno keeps answering your questions, and then you 
> > either pretend that he didn't
>  
> Like the time just a few days ago when Bruno said all my objections were 
> already answered in a post that could be "easily" found in the archives, and 
> when I asked exactly where it was he said he couldn't be expected to find it 
> because he has sent thousands of posts?


If you have an argument against step 3 just show it. All those everybody has 
seen dismissed the use of the diaries and the 1P/3p distinction systematically, 
and that has been debunked by many participants in the list, but you keep 
calling that by name, which is an invalid way to proceed (to say the least).

Bruno



> 
> > or make fun of his mode of expression, with your "pee pees" and "homemade 
> > terms"
> That is not Ad Hominem that is a statement of fact, his pee pee notation with 
> its circular definitions and personal pronouns with no unique referent is 
> homemade, and so are his endless acronyms that he seems to expect any 
> scientifically literate person should know when in fact they are seen on this 
> very tiny list and nowhere else on the planet. Why would somebody who had a 
> clear idea that was very good muddy things up by doing that? They wouldn't, 
> therefore the idea must not be clear and it must not be very good. 
> 
> > You frequently brag about not reading after the first line,
> If you find a blunder in a proof only a fool would keep reading because a 
> proof builds on what comes before so everything after that point is pure 
> nonsense.  As for bragging,... I don't claim to be a genius but I do claim 
> not to be a fool.
> 
>  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 
> .

-- 
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: What is a Löbian machine/number/combinator

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 19:28, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 12:21 AM, Russell Standish  > wrote:
> 
> >> How can I determine if that particular Turing Machine is doing something 
> >> fundamentally different from what every other Turing Machine is doing?
> 
> > I would say that it is a machine that proves Loeb's theorem.
> A machine that could show that Loeb’s theorem was consistent with 
> Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory plus the axiom of choice and its negation was not 
> but could do nothing else would display no more general intelligence than a 
> chess program or a checkers program or even a tic tac toe program. 
> 
> 

?

Löb’s theorem is a scheme of theorem of arithmetic, or ZF. That has to be as 
consistent than arithmetic or set theory.


> > Not all Turing machines are capable of that, even universal machines absent 
> > the right software.
> Without the right software a universal machine is not capable of doing 
> anything,
> 

?

A universal machine is the right software able to do any computation. But of 
course not all proof. It need the scheme of induction formulas. RA and PA are 
Turing universal, but only PA is Löbian (it can prove its own universality and 
the consequences of it).


> with the right software it can calculate anything that can be calculated 
> including loeb’s theorem.
> 
> 


That does not make sense. Usual confusion compute/prove.

Bruno

> 
>  >​>​ There is no way I can ever know if Hod Lipson 's robots are self aware, 
> I don't even know if Hod Lipson is self aware, all I know for sure is that 
> both behave intelligently. 
>  
> > His argument is that his robot is self-aware, for some operational 
> > definition of self-aware.
> If his definition is operational it must involve intelligent behavior, I 
> don’t see how it could be otherwise.
> 
> 
> ​ ​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 
> .

-- 
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: What is a Löbian machine/number/combinator

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 18:04, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> With a T a theory that admits diagonalization and for Bew(x) a formula with a 
> free x,.we have 
> 
> ├_T S ↔ Bew(gn(S)).
> 
> The Löb theorem involves the diagonalization in T D(x,y) such that for any 
> D(x,y) = k is the Gödel number diag(x) = k and y = k. This corresponds I 
> think to the φ_u(x,y). It is some algebra to show this leads to the equation 
> above.
> 
> The  Löb theorem if├_T Bew(gn(S)) → S then├_T S has parallels with the modal 
> logical
> 
> □(□S → S) →  □S,
> 
> which is a way of saying that if □S → S then S.

It is a way of saying that if □S → S is *provable*, then S is provable. 


> This is a fancy way of just saying that if a statement S is provable then S 
> holds. 

?

The Löb formula says the contrary. It says for example with S = f (false), that 
if the machine is consistent (~provable(f), i.e []f -> f), then f is provable. 
So if the machine is could prove []f -> f it would prove f and be inconsistent.




> 
> In part this corroborates with what you write. I would say the axiom of 
> reflection, if I recall the name for it,  □S → S is usually thought of as an 
> axiom.


It is an axiom of the soul (SAGrz) and of the Noùs (G*), but the machine cannot 
prove it. That is why we can apply the idea of Theaetetus. As typically []p -> 
p is not provable, it makes sense to define knowledge by “[]p & p”, like in 
Plato. That gives a modal logic of knowledge, but by Tarski (and variants), 
that cannot be defined by the machine, which is nice, as it confirms Brouwer 
theory of the mental.




> In the  Löb theorem we appear to have instances where maybe this might not 
> hold.

Not maybe. Certainly. Typical cases []f -> f is not provable. []<>[]f -> <>[]f 
is not provable, etc.



> If we think of the complement, with ¬ = NOT, is
> 
> ¬□S → ¬□(□S → S) 
> 
> equal to
> 
> ¬□¬¬S → ¬□¬¬(□S → S) 

> or for ¬□¬ = ◊, non necessarily not = possibly, we then have
> 
> ◊¬S → ◊¬(□S → S) or
> 
> ◊¬S → ◊(¬S → ¬□S)  
> 

(that line will be false when we do the sigma_1 restriction!)



> ◊¬S → ◊(¬S → ◊¬S)

OK. That is almost the dual presentation of Löb’s formula, but it will not work 
on the sigma_1 (semi-computable) restriction.

Here, out of that restriction, you could use ~S instead of S, so that you have  
◊S → ◊(S → ◊S)   

> 
> with the conclusion that ¬S → (¬S → ◊¬S). The ◊ = possibly means we have an 
> open door of sorts. We do not have the falsity of S implying logically some 
> proof thereof.


This means that incompleteness entails the platonic nuances []p & p, []p & <>p, 
… That plays a key role in the derivation of physics from arithmetic (as 
imposed by Digital Mechanism).

Bruno




> 
> LC
> 
> On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 12:11:35 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Somewhere: (and I copy my answer, as some people asked me this in this list 
> too).
> 
> 
>> 
>> What are Lobian numbers? Can you give a reference? I know little bit about 
>> Godel’s work.
> 
> 
> Consider any Turing universal machinery, for example the programming language 
> c++. 
> 
> N is the set of natural numbers.
> 
> It is known that the enumeration of all programs computing a (perhaps not 
> everywhere defined) function from N to N exists, and so we get a list of all 
> partial computable function phi_i from N to N. (i.e. phi_0, phi_1, phi_2, …), 
> by enumerating the program with one natural number argument) written in C++, 
> in their lexico-graphical order (length, and alphabetical for the programs 
> with the same length).
> 
> We can define a universal number as a number u such that phI_u(x, y) = 
> phi_x(y). We say that u implements x on y. (It is a constructive definition 
> of a computer in the language of the computer).
> 
> Now, once we have a universal number, we can transform/extend it into a 
> theory, which is the first order logical specification of how u operates. 
> That is a standard mapping from, say, c++ to a Turing universal logical 
> theory. 
> 
> I assume we have done that, so now I say that a universal number is Löbian 
> when it has enough induction axioms (added to its logical specification) so 
> that it can prove enough of some special formula. 
> 
> If “[]” represents the provability predicate (Gödel 1931)of some first order 
> Turing universal theory/number, Löbian means that it can prove p -> []p for 
> all p equivalent with a semi-computable predicate known as sigma_1 
> predicate). In fact “p -> []p” is equivalent with Turing universality, and if 
> a Universal can prove this for all p sigma_1, it will not only be Turing 
> universal, but it will know (in some technical sense) that it is Turing 
> Universal.
> 
> “[]” itself is sigma_1, which entails that []p -> [][]p is provable.
> 
> Those corresponds to what is called “sufficiently rich theories” (for proving 
> their own incompleteness theorem).
> 
> Löbianity appears when you add to:
> 
> 0 ≠ s(x)
> s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
> x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
> x+0 =