Re: Entanglement

[smitra]

On 04-05-2018 01:51, Bruce Kellett wrote:

From: BRENT MEEKER 


On 5/3/2018 4:03 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:


The problem, of course, is that this unitary operator is formed in
the multiverse, so to form its inverse we have to have access to
the other worlds of the multiverse. And this is impossible because
of the linearity of the SE. So although the mathematics of unitary
transformations is perfectly reversible, measurements are not
reversible in principle in the one world we find ourselves to
inhabit.


I think we need a more precise term than "in principle" which could
confuesed with "mathematically". You really mean reversal is
_nomologically_ impossible even though it's _mathematically_
reversible. It's more impossible that _FAPP_ or _statistically_ but
not _logically_ impossible. :-)


 Not doable "in principle" just means that there is no conceivable way
in which it could be done. It is not just a matter of difficulty, or
that it would take longer than the lifetime of the universe. It is
actually impossible. Quantum mechanics does not imply that all things
that are logically possible are nomologically possible, or could be
achieved in practice.  That is why Saibal's claim that there exists a
unitary operator that does what he wants is rather empty -- there are
an infinite number of unitary operators that are not realizable in
practice. And this limitation is a limitation "in principle".

 Bruce


In the QC example by Deutsch, this objection does not apply as all 
unitary transforms can be realized. Any unitary transform can be 
generated using combinations of the CNOT and the Hadamard gate, so there 
is no obstacle to realize the thought experiment, given a large enough 
QC.


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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entanglement

[Bruce Kellett]

From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>>


On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 4:22:47 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: 


On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 11:52:00 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: *Brent Meeker* 


On 5/3/2018 4:03 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

The problem, of course, is that this unitary operator is
formed in the multiverse, so to form its inverse we have to
have access to the other worlds of the multiverse. And this
is impossible because of the linearity of the SE. So
although the mathematics of unitary transformations is
perfectly reversible, measurements are not reversible in
principle in the one world we find ourselves to inhabit.


I think we need a more precise term than "in principle"
which could confuesed with "mathematically".  You really
mean reversal is /nomologically/ impossible even though it's
/mathematically/ reversible.  It's more impossible that
/FAPP/ or /statistically/ but not /logically/ impossible.  :-)


Not doable "in principle" just means that there is no
conceivable way in which it could be done. It is not just a
matter of difficulty, or that it would take longer than the
lifetime of the universe. It is actually impossible. Quantum
mechanics does not imply that all things that are logically
possible are nomologically possible, or could be achieved in
practice.  That is why Saibal's claim that there exists a
unitary operator that does what he wants is rather empty --
there are an infinite number of unitary operators that are
not realizable in practice. And this limitation is a
limitation "in principle".

Bruce


*If you take the view that quantum reality is irreducibly random,
it MEANS that there is no process in nature that can explain how
a random event could occur, for if such a process existed, it
would contradict "irreducibly random". Bruce seems to take the
view that all measurements are irreversible in principle. That
might not be true. For example, suppose the temperature of a
system decreases. Isn't it hypothetically possible to imagine a
time reversal of all the IR photons which caused the cooling, to
reunite with the original system and restore the previous higher
temperature? If so, the cooling process in this example is
reversible albeit hugely improbable -- which I refer to as
statistically reversible, or irreversible FAPP. I think Bruce can
give an example of a measurement which is time irreversible in
principle, that is, impossible to time reverse. AG*


Classical situations involving the second law of thermodynamics
(increasing entropy) are reversible, though reversal is improbable
because the second law is statistical. The situation in quantum
mechanics is different when we have a measurement with several
different possible outcomes. In MWI these outcomes are in
different branches, and we cannot reach into these worlds to
reverse things there. Decoherence in this branch is certainly
statistical, and so it is in all branches, but it is different in
each branch of the wave function, so reversing this branch does
nothing for the others, and does not restore the original
superposition. Thus the process is irreversible in principle
(nomologically irreversible -- to reverse violates the laws of
physics).

Bruce


*Can you give an example of an irreversible in principle measurement 
using CI, not MWI? I understand your MWI analysis, but if there is 
only one world, and decoherence is used in an attempt to explain the 
measurement process, and if decoherence is statistical in this world, 
is there a clear example of an irreversible in principle measurement 
if we only have one world, this world? AG*


If there is collapse, as in the CI, then the irreversibility is even 
clearer: the other branches simply do not exist, so their contribution 
to the superposition no longer exists, so clearly cannot be reversed.


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 Friday, May 4, 2018 at 4:22:47 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> From: >
>
>
> On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 11:52:00 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: 
>>
>> From: Brent Meeker 
>>
>>
>> On 5/3/2018 4:03 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>> The problem, of course, is that this unitary operator is formed in the 
>> multiverse, so to form its inverse we have to have access to the other 
>> worlds of the multiverse. And this is impossible because of the linearity 
>> of the SE. So although the mathematics of unitary transformations is 
>> perfectly reversible, measurements are not reversible in principle in the 
>> one world we find ourselves to inhabit.
>>
>>
>> I think we need a more precise term than "in principle" which could 
>> confuesed with "mathematically".  You really mean reversal is 
>> *nomologically* impossible even though it's *mathematically* 
>> reversible.  It's more impossible that *FAPP* or *statistically* but not 
>> *logically* impossible.  :-)
>>
>>
>> Not doable "in principle" just means that there is no conceivable way in 
>> which it could be done. It is not just a matter of difficulty, or that it 
>> would take longer than the lifetime of the universe. It is actually 
>> impossible. Quantum mechanics does not imply that all things that are 
>> logically possible are nomologically possible, or could be achieved in 
>> practice.  That is why Saibal's claim that there exists a unitary operator 
>> that does what he wants is rather empty -- there are an infinite number of 
>> unitary operators that are not realizable in practice. And this limitation 
>> is a limitation "in principle".
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> *If you take the view that quantum reality is irreducibly random, it MEANS 
> that there is no process in nature that can explain how a random event 
> could occur, for if such a process existed, it would contradict 
> "irreducibly random". Bruce seems to take the view that all measurements 
> are irreversible in principle. That might not be true. For example, suppose 
> the temperature of a system decreases. Isn't it hypothetically possible to 
> imagine a time reversal of all the IR photons which caused the cooling, to 
> reunite with the original system and restore the previous higher 
> temperature? If so, the cooling process in this example is reversible 
> albeit hugely improbable -- which I refer to as statistically reversible, 
> or irreversible FAPP. I think Bruce can give an example of a measurement 
> which is time irreversible in principle, that is, impossible to time 
> reverse. AG*
>
>
> Classical situations involving the second law of thermodynamics 
> (increasing entropy) are reversible, though reversal is improbable because 
> the second law is statistical. The situation in quantum mechanics is 
> different when we have a measurement with several different possible 
> outcomes. In MWI these outcomes are in different branches, and we cannot 
> reach into these worlds to reverse things there. Decoherence in this branch 
> is certainly statistical, and so it is in all branches, but it is different 
> in each branch of the wave function, so reversing this branch does nothing 
> for the others, and does not restore the original superposition. Thus the 
> process is irreversible in principle (nomologically irreversible -- to 
> reverse violates the laws of physics).
>
> Bruce
>

*Can you give an example of an irreversible in principle measurement using 
CI, not MWI? I understand your MWI analysis, but if there is only one 
world, and decoherence is used in an attempt to explain the measurement 
process, and if decoherence is statistical in this world, is there a clear 
example of an irreversible in principle measurement if we only have one 
world, this world? 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 Friday, May 4, 2018 at 4:07:26 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 11:52:00 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> From: *Brent Meeker* 
>
>
> On 5/3/2018 4:03 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> The problem, of course, is that this unitary operator is formed in the 
> multiverse, so to form its inverse we have to have access to the other 
> worlds of the multiverse. And this is impossible because of the linearity 
> of the SE. So although the mathematics of unitary transformations is 
> perfectly reversible, measurements are not reversible in principle in the 
> one world we find ourselves to inhabit.
>
>
> I think we need a more precise term than "in principle" which could 
> confuesed with "mathematically".  You really mean reversal is 
> *nomologically* impossible even though it's *mathematically* reversible.  
> It's more impossible that *FAPP* or *statistically* but not *logically* 
> impossible.  :-)
>
>
> Not doable "in principle" just means that there is no conceivable way in 
> which it could be done. It is not just a matter of difficulty, or that it 
> would take longer than the lifetime of the universe. It is actually 
> impossible. Quantum mechanics does not imply that all things that are 
> logically possible are nomologically possible, or could be achieved in 
> practice.  That is why Saibal's claim that there exists a unitary operator 
> that does what he wants is rather empty -- there are an infinite number of 
> unitary operators that are not realizable in practice. And this limitation 
> is a limitation "in principle".
>
> Bruce
>
>
> *If you take the view that quantum reality is irreducibly random, it MEANS 
> that there is no process in nature that can explain how a random event 
> could occur, for if such a process existed, it would contradict 
> "irreducibly random". Bruce seems to take the view that all measurements 
> are irreversible in principle. That might not be true. For example, suppose 
> the temperature of a system decreases. Isn't it hypothetically possible to 
> imagine a time reversal of all the IR photons which caused the cooling, to 
> reunite with the original system and restore the previous higher 
> temperature? If so, the cooling process in this example is reversible 
> albeit hugely improbable -- which I refer to as statistically reversible, 
> or irreversible FAPP. I think Bruce can give an example of a measurement 
> which is time irreversible in principle, that is, impossible to time 
> reverse. AG*
>



*CORRECTION:Since Maxwell's equations are Lorentz invariant, I don't think 
Einstein had to modify them. The situation with mechanics was different; 
those laws were NOT Lorentz invariant and Einstein did in fact modify them. 
E&M allows for action at a distance, as does GR, at the SoL I don't think 
the issue is relevant to mechanics where all actions occur at points of 
contact. 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 5/3/2018 9:07 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 11:52:00 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: *Brent Meeker* >


On 5/3/2018 4:03 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

The problem, of course, is that this unitary operator is formed
in the multiverse, so to form its inverse we have to have access
to the other worlds of the multiverse. And this is impossible
because of the linearity of the SE. So although the mathematics
of unitary transformations is perfectly reversible, measurements
are not reversible in principle in the one world we find
ourselves to inhabit.


I think we need a more precise term than "in principle" which
could confuesed with "mathematically".  You really mean reversal
is /nomologically/ impossible even though it's /mathematically/
reversible.  It's more impossible that /FAPP/ or /statistically/
but not /logically/ impossible.  :-)


Not doable "in principle" just means that there is no conceivable
way in which it could be done. It is not just a matter of
difficulty, or that it would take longer than the lifetime of the
universe. It is actually impossible. Quantum mechanics does not
imply that all things that are logically possible are
nomologically possible, or could be achieved in practice.  That is
why Saibal's claim that there exists a unitary operator that does
what he wants is rather empty -- there are an infinite number of
unitary operators that are not realizable in practice. And this
limitation is a limitation "in principle".

Bruce


*If you take the view that quantum reality is irreducibly random, it 
MEANS that there is no process in nature that can explain how a random 
event could occur, for if such a process existed, it would contradict 
"irreducibly random". Bruce seems to take the view that all 
measurements are irreversible in principle. That might not be true. 
For example, suppose the temperature of a system decreases. Isn't it 
hypothetically possible to imagine a time reversal of all the IR 
photons which caused the cooling, to reunite with the original system 
and restore the previous higher temperature? If so, the cooling 
process in this example is reversible albeit hugely improbable -- 
which I refer to as statistically reversible, or irreversible FAPP. *


*As long as there is no interaction with the outgoing photons, they are 
just the potential particles of a spherical EM wave.  An ideal spherical 
mirror could then "in principle" reflect them back into a converging 
spherical wave.  This is what quantum erasure experiments do on a small 
(one photon) scale. *
*I think Bruce can give an example of a measurement which is time 
irreversible in principle, that is, impossible to time reverse. AG*


*If the EM wave interacts with something, then it's at a particular 
place.  In CI terms the spherical wave collapses to photon(s) at that 
place.  In general this "collapse" can happen at different places which 
in MWI means the probability flows to orthogonal subspaces, quantum 
erasure would mean reversing things in different (almost orthogonal) 
subspaces.**

**
**Brent*





So even Deutsch's quantum brain is likely to run into
difficulties, since it has to communicate with the real world.


That's a general problem with quantum computers; they need to
decohere  produce a result. I think  Saibal Mitra wrote a paper
on this point.

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]

From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>>


On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 11:52:00 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:

From: *Brent Meeker* 


On 5/3/2018 4:03 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

The problem, of course, is that this unitary operator is formed
in the multiverse, so to form its inverse we have to have access
to the other worlds of the multiverse. And this is impossible
because of the linearity of the SE. So although the mathematics
of unitary transformations is perfectly reversible, measurements
are not reversible in principle in the one world we find
ourselves to inhabit.


I think we need a more precise term than "in principle" which
could confuesed with "mathematically".  You really mean reversal
is /nomologically/ impossible even though it's /mathematically/
reversible.  It's more impossible that /FAPP/ or /statistically/
but not /logically/ impossible.  :-)


Not doable "in principle" just means that there is no conceivable
way in which it could be done. It is not just a matter of
difficulty, or that it would take longer than the lifetime of the
universe. It is actually impossible. Quantum mechanics does not
imply that all things that are logically possible are
nomologically possible, or could be achieved in practice.  That is
why Saibal's claim that there exists a unitary operator that does
what he wants is rather empty -- there are an infinite number of
unitary operators that are not realizable in practice. And this
limitation is a limitation "in principle".

Bruce


*If you take the view that quantum reality is irreducibly random, it 
MEANS that there is no process in nature that can explain how a random 
event could occur, for if such a process existed, it would contradict 
"irreducibly random". Bruce seems to take the view that all 
measurements are irreversible in principle. That might not be true. 
For example, suppose the temperature of a system decreases. Isn't it 
hypothetically possible to imagine a time reversal of all the IR 
photons which caused the cooling, to reunite with the original system 
and restore the previous higher temperature? If so, the cooling 
process in this example is reversible albeit hugely improbable -- 
which I refer to as statistically reversible, or irreversible FAPP. I 
think Bruce can give an example of a measurement which is time 
irreversible in principle, that is, impossible to time reverse. AG*


Classical situations involving the second law of thermodynamics 
(increasing entropy) are reversible, though reversal is improbable 
because the second law is statistical. The situation in quantum 
mechanics is different when we have a measurement with several different 
possible outcomes. In MWI these outcomes are in different branches, and 
we cannot reach into these worlds to reverse things there. Decoherence 
in this branch is certainly statistical, and so it is in all branches, 
but it is different in each branch of the wave function, so reversing 
this branch does nothing for the others, and does not restore the 
original superposition. Thus the process is irreversible in principle 
(nomologically irreversible -- to reverse violates the laws of physics).


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, May 3, 2018 at 11:52:00 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> From: Brent Meeker < meek...@verizon.net >
>
>
> On 5/3/2018 4:03 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> The problem, of course, is that this unitary operator is formed in the 
> multiverse, so to form its inverse we have to have access to the other 
> worlds of the multiverse. And this is impossible because of the linearity 
> of the SE. So although the mathematics of unitary transformations is 
> perfectly reversible, measurements are not reversible in principle in the 
> one world we find ourselves to inhabit.
>
>
> I think we need a more precise term than "in principle" which could 
> confuesed with "mathematically".  You really mean reversal is 
> *nomologically* impossible even though it's *mathematically* reversible.  
> It's more impossible that *FAPP* or *statistically* but not *logically* 
> impossible.  :-)
>
>
> Not doable "in principle" just means that there is no conceivable way in 
> which it could be done. It is not just a matter of difficulty, or that it 
> would take longer than the lifetime of the universe. It is actually 
> impossible. Quantum mechanics does not imply that all things that are 
> logically possible are nomologically possible, or could be achieved in 
> practice.  That is why Saibal's claim that there exists a unitary operator 
> that does what he wants is rather empty -- there are an infinite number of 
> unitary operators that are not realizable in practice. And this limitation 
> is a limitation "in principle".
>
> Bruce
>

*If you take the view that quantum reality is irreducibly random, it MEANS 
that there is no process in nature that can explain how a random event 
could occur, for if such a process existed, it would contradict 
"irreducibly random". Bruce seems to take the view that all measurements 
are irreversible in principle. That might not be true. For example, suppose 
the temperature of a system decreases. Isn't it hypothetically possible to 
imagine a time reversal of all the IR photons which caused the cooling, to 
reunite with the original system and restore the previous higher 
temperature? If so, the cooling process in this example is reversible 
albeit hugely improbable -- which I refer to as statistically reversible, 
or irreversible FAPP. I think Bruce can give an example of a measurement 
which is time irreversible in principle, that is, impossible to time 
reverse. AG*

>
>
> So even Deutsch's quantum brain is likely to run into difficulties, since 
> it has to communicate with the real world.
>
>
> That's a general problem with quantum computers; they need to decohere  
> produce a result.  I think  Saibal Mitra wrote a paper on this point.
>
> Brent
>
>
>

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

Re: Entanglement

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 4:12:31 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 2 May 2018, at 10:53, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 3:36:31 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 29 Apr 2018, at 08:21, 'scerir' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> IMO Schroedinger invented this manyworlds or manyminds or manywords 
> interpretation.
>
>
> The quote below seems to indicate that this is not the case, unless you 
> agree (with me, and Deutsch, …) that QM *is* the discovery of the many 
> superposed worlds/states/minds, and that the founder added the collapse 
> postulate ONLY to avoid the proliferation of the alternate 
> worlds/states/minds. Everett is just the guy who realise that the MW does 
> not leads to a jelly quagmire of everything, by taking the first person 
> view (what he called subjective) of the observers, as their memories get as 
> much quasi orthogonal that the results they could have attributed to a 
> collapse. The collapse, and the irreversibility is purely “subjective” 
> (first person) and irreversible in principle for *us*. To reverse the 
> entire universal wave, we would need to go outside the physical universe in 
> some practical way, which, needless to say, is rather difficult.
>
> But I do agree with you, Schroedinger and Einstein understood that the 
> collapse was a problem for the rest of physics and philosophy. They were 
> rightly skeptical that Bohr and Heisenberg got the whole thing. Would have 
> they like Everett? Bohr just threw Everett out of his home, I have read 
> somewhere. I think Einstein would have prefer it to anything involving an 
> action at a distance, like Bohm’s theory (non local hidden variable 
> theory). Indeed, as you all know, Einstein told that he would have prefered 
> to be a plumber than be involved in a theory with some action-at-a distance.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> Relativity affirms action at a distance. 
>
>
> ?
>
> Relativity is born with Einstein trying, and succeeding, to eliminate the 
> action at a distance in Newton’s theory of gravitation, and in Maxwell ’s 
> theory of electromagnetism.
>

*Wrong. Completely wrong. Ever hear of the light cone in relativity? 
Light-like events are causally connected, which MEANS action at a distance, 
whereas space-like events are not. Relativity, and E&M after being modified 
by Einstein, affirm action at a distance. Newton's gravity theory has 
instantaneous action at a distance. It was modified in the form of GR, 
which allows for action at a distance at the speed of light. Classical E&M 
allowed for fields and actions to propagate at the SoL, but not 
instantaneously. You speculate authoritatively on the nature of the Cosmos 
but have little to no knowledge of basic physics. AG *

>
> Einstein found physical indeterminacy, and physical action at a distance 
> making no sense at all. But with the MW theory, neither the indeterminacy, 
> nor the “action-at-distance” are physical. They are only local appearances. 
> (Like we expect with digital mechanism).
>
> My sense is that Einstein would have found the MWI "repellent" (to quote 
> Weinberg). 
>
>
> Plausiby. But I guess Einstein would have found the MW far less 
> conceptually repellent than physical action at a distance.
>
> He would have found it excessively ornate, 
>
> Or excessively elegant. Somehow, Everett is to Copenhagen what General 
> relativity is to special direction, albeit in epistemological direction.
>
> Everett is just the preceding theory (Copenhagen , that 
> Schroedinger/Dirac/etc.  equation + collapse (and a strange dualist 
> theory)), where Everett is just taking Schroedinger equation seriously. 
>
> And then Everett confirmed the consequence of an even simpler theory, 
> which is actually a theorem already of Peano Arithmetic. The theory that 
> there is a universal machine. Now it is a theorem that all universal 
> machine dreams that they are all universal machine, and they define a 
> “consciousness flux” which differentiate into consistent, sound and 
> unsound, theories and experiments, and first person experience, justifying, 
> testable, the core of all geographical histories, the physical laws.
>
> Why add a collapse axiom? To satisfy the ego to be unique? The 
> “many-world” is only the wave equation, or the Heisenberg matrices, with an 
> internal relative states interpretation, which requires only the Gleason 
> measure. 
>
> or to quote Nietzsche when discussing Christianity, "rococo".  AG 
>
>
>
> Which Christianity? Hypatia, who taught Plotinus Neoplatonism and 
> Diophantus' Mathematics in Alexandria was confronted, at about +400, with 
> two types of Christians. The educated one, knowing about Plato and 
> discussing theology, and well versed in mathematics (which was a 
> prerequisite in theology) and then a growing number of literalist radicals. 
> Yet the emperor Constantin, who will convert to christianism is still an 
> open minded christian, tempering the 

Re: Entanglement

[Brent Meeker]

On 5/3/2018 4:51 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

From: *Brent Meeker* 


On 5/3/2018 4:03 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
The problem, of course, is that this unitary operator is formed in 
the multiverse, so to form its inverse we have to have access to the 
other worlds of the multiverse. And this is impossible because of 
the linearity of the SE. So although the mathematics of unitary 
transformations is perfectly reversible, measurements are not 
reversible in principle in the one world we find ourselves to inhabit.


I think we need a more precise term than "in principle" which could 
confuesed with "mathematically". You really mean reversal is 
/nomologically/ impossible even though it's /mathematically/ 
reversible.  It's more impossible that /FAPP/ or /statistically/ but 
not /logically/ impossible.  :-)


Not doable "in principle" just means that there is no conceivable way 
in which it could be done. 


Well maybe it's that I speak American English instead of Aussie; but "in 
principle" leaves me wondering which principle: logically, mathematical, 
physical, economic,...


Brent

It is not just a matter of difficulty, or that it would take longer 
than the lifetime of the universe. It is actually impossible. Quantum 
mechanics does not imply that all things that are logically possible 
are nomologically possible, or could be achieved in practice.  That is 
why Saibal's claim that there exists a unitary operator that does what 
he wants is rather empty -- there are an infinite number of unitary 
operators that are not realizable in practice. And this limitation is 
a limitation "in principle".


Bruce



So even Deutsch's quantum brain is likely to run into difficulties, 
since it has to communicate with the real world.


That's a general problem with quantum computers; they need to 
decohere  produce a result.  I think  Saibal Mitra wrote a paper on 
this point.


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]

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


On 5/3/2018 4:03 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
The problem, of course, is that this unitary operator is formed in 
the multiverse, so to form its inverse we have to have access to the 
other worlds of the multiverse. And this is impossible because of the 
linearity of the SE. So although the mathematics of unitary 
transformations is perfectly reversible, measurements are not 
reversible in principle in the one world we find ourselves to inhabit.


I think we need a more precise term than "in principle" which could 
confuesed with "mathematically".  You really mean reversal is 
/nomologically/ impossible even though it's /mathematically/ 
reversible.  It's more impossible that /FAPP/ or /statistically/ but 
not /logically/ impossible.  :-)


Not doable "in principle" just means that there is no conceivable way in 
which it could be done. It is not just a matter of difficulty, or that 
it would take longer than the lifetime of the universe. It is actually 
impossible. Quantum mechanics does not imply that all things that are 
logically possible are nomologically possible, or could be achieved in 
practice.  That is why Saibal's claim that there exists a unitary 
operator that does what he wants is rather empty -- there are an 
infinite number of unitary operators that are not realizable in 
practice. And this limitation is a limitation "in principle".


Bruce



So even Deutsch's quantum brain is likely to run into difficulties, 
since it has to communicate with the real world.


That's a general problem with quantum computers; they need to 
decohere  produce a result.  I think  Saibal Mitra wrote a paper on 
this point.


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 5/3/2018 4:03 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
The problem, of course, is that this unitary operator is formed in the 
multiverse, so to form its inverse we have to have access to the other 
worlds of the multiverse. And this is impossible because of the 
linearity of the SE. So although the mathematics of unitary 
transformations is perfectly reversible, measurements are not 
reversible in principle in the one world we find ourselves to inhabit.


I think we need a more precise term than "in principle" which could 
confuesed with "mathematically".  You really mean reversal is 
/nomologically/ impossible even though it's /mathematically/ 
reversible.  It's more impossible that /FAPP/ or /statistically/ but not 
/logically/ impossible.  :-)




So even Deutsch's quantum brain is likely to run into difficulties, 
since it has to communicate with the real world.


That's a general problem with quantum computers; they need to decohere  
produce a result.  I think  Saibal Mitra wrote a paper on this point.


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: What is a Löbian machine/number/combinator

[Quentin Anciaux]

Again the perfect example of I lost so I dodge...

Le jeu. 3 mai 2018 21:36, John Clark  a écrit :

>
> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> ​>> ​
>>> You say the diary solves the referent issue because its clear the man in
>>> Helsinki wrote it and he wrote it yesterday, but in one variation of the
>>> thought experiment there is nobody in Helsinki today, there are people in
>>> Moscow and Washington who vividly remember writing that diary but what one
>>> and only one really did?
>>
>>
>> ​> ​
>> We assume Mechanism, so the answer is simply both, from the third person
>> point of view, and only one, for each of the first person point of view
>> obtained.
>>
>
> ​Counter argument #11​42
>
> ​>>​
>>> What did the correct answer to the question turn out to be?
>>
>>
>> ​>​
>> The question was the prediction of the next experience. The correct
>> answer, remaining correc,t through the experience was the prediction “I
>> will feel either W or M”, written “W v M”, keeping in mind that the
>> question concerned the experience at the first person.
>>
>> So it is “W v M”.
>>
>
> ​Counter argument #926​
>
>
> ​>>​
>>> Who wrote the diary?
>>
>>
>> ​> ​
>> The candidate of the experience.
>>
>
> ​And who is the ​
>  candidate of the experience
> ​? The guy who wrote the diary of course.​
>
>
>> ​>> ​
>>> Is the one and only one referent to the personal pronoun “I” in the
>>> question the Moscow man or the Washington man?
>>
>>
>> ​> ​
>> Anyone. We keep only the prediction assessed by all of them. In the big
>> number iteration of that experience, the correct prediction is “white
>> noise”.
>>
>
> ​Yes that's what I thought, hot air and a big noise.​
>
>>
> ​>> ​
>>> It can’t be the Helsinki man because today there is no Helsinki man.
>>
>>
>> ​> ​
>> That contradicts the local personal identity definition that you have
>> agreed very often upon,
>>
>
> ​An oldie but a goodie, counter agreement #22​
>
> ​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

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 3 May 2018, at 04:16, Bruce Kellett > wrote:

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

On 02-05-2018 03:21, Brent Meeker wrote:


How will the person verify it? Reversing the computation will
reverse
the person and erase their memory.

Brent


It's a simple two step measurement process where you (as a virtual 
person simulated by the QC) perform a measurement that tells you 
that the spin (represented by a qubit) has been measured without 
giving you the result. And then you perform the next measurement 
where you actually measure the value of the spin component. It can 
then be shown that there exists a unitary transform that will 
restore the original spin state that will preserve the record of the 
first measurement.


Saibal


You can prove anything in a simulation, because you get to choose the 
physical laws that will be obeyed. How do you know that the 
simulation will bear any relation to reality? A measurement is 
something that leaves a permanent (un-erasable) record.


But for Deutsch experiments, we don’t need to erase the information, 
only to discard it in the vanilla ways. That seems impossible because 
we are used to leaking environment, but if we can do a quantum 
computer, we can do that, and it means we did found ways to a sort of 
absolute isolation, measurement without interactions, (à-la Eiltzur 
Vaidman), etc.


With a quantum brain, a human can do that experience, and come back 
remembering well opening the box, and saying to itself “I definiitly 
saw the definite result”, but after the coming back he said "now 
despite I remember all that, I get a blank when trying to remember 
that specific result, I can’t recall it (and this despite the quantum 
brain “knows the answer”, but is well blocked by some quantum Freudian 
algorithm (grin).


I tend to think that the laws of physics are reversible.


Actually, this is the basis of MWI -- everything in physics is based on 
unitary transformations. The Schrödinger equation can be derived by 
assuming time evolution is unitary. So, in the wider context, 
everything, even decoherence into the wider universe, is reversible, in 
the sense that there is a unitary transformation that, when applied to 
any final state, restores the initial state -- just take the unitary 
operator that describes the time evolution, say U, and then take its 
inverse, U^{-1}.


The problem, of course, is that this unitary operator is formed in the 
multiverse, so to form its inverse we have to have access to the other 
worlds of the multiverse. And this is impossible because of the 
linearity of the SE. So although the mathematics of unitary 
transformations is perfectly reversible, measurements are not reversible 
in principle in the one world we find ourselves to inhabit.


So even Deutsch's quantum brain is likely to run into difficulties, 
since it has to communicate with the real world.


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

[John Clark]

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​>> ​
>> You say the diary solves the referent issue because its clear the man in
>> Helsinki wrote it and he wrote it yesterday, but in one variation of the
>> thought experiment there is nobody in Helsinki today, there are people in
>> Moscow and Washington who vividly remember writing that diary but what one
>> and only one really did?
>
>
> ​> ​
> We assume Mechanism, so the answer is simply both, from the third person
> point of view, and only one, for each of the first person point of view
> obtained.
>

​Counter argument #11​42

​>>​
>> What did the correct answer to the question turn out to be?
>
>
> ​>​
> The question was the prediction of the next experience. The correct
> answer, remaining correc,t through the experience was the prediction “I
> will feel either W or M”, written “W v M”, keeping in mind that the
> question concerned the experience at the first person.
>
> So it is “W v M”.
>

​Counter argument #926​


​>>​
>> Who wrote the diary?
>
>
> ​> ​
> The candidate of the experience.
>

​And who is the ​
 candidate of the experience
​? The guy who wrote the diary of course.​


> ​>> ​
>> Is the one and only one referent to the personal pronoun “I” in the
>> question the Moscow man or the Washington man?
>
>
> ​> ​
> Anyone. We keep only the prediction assessed by all of them. In the big
> number iteration of that experience, the correct prediction is “white
> noise”.
>

​Yes that's what I thought, hot air and a big noise.​

>
​>> ​
>> It can’t be the Helsinki man because today there is no Helsinki man.
>
>
> ​> ​
> That contradicts the local personal identity definition that you have
> agreed very often upon,
>

​An oldie but a goodie, counter agreement #22​

​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

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 1 May 2018, at 20:44, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/1/2018 8:52 AM, John Clark wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:10 PM, Brent Meeker > > wrote:
>> 
>> ​> ​ Yes that's hard, perhaps meaningless, question to answer (and I don't 
>> think it's the question Bruno wants answered).  
>> 
>> ​ Then its not an experiment, its not a thought experiment, its not even a 
>> question its just a sequence of words with a question mark at the end. ​ 
> 
> 
> It's a rhetorical question to illustrate a consequence of Everett's relative 
> state.


No. It is a conceptual question needed to clarify to make sense of Everett but 
also of mechanism. In arithmetic we are duplicated all the times, and the wave 
(not just its apparent collapse) must be deduced from the statistical sum on 
all experiences of computational into account. 

If not, it means you invoke a God to select a computations, in a non computable 
way, nor FPI recoverable way, Which is already suspect. But that can be tested, 
and such a God does not seem to be (yet) detected, thank to QM (without 
collapse).

Bruno


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

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

Re: What is a Löbian machine/number/combinator

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 30 Apr 2018, at 18:09, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> You say the diary solves the referent issue because its clear the man in 
> Helsinki wrote it and he wrote it yesterday, but in one variation of the 
> thought experiment there is nobody in Helsinki today, there are people in 
> Moscow and Washington who vividly remember writing that diary but what one 
> and only one really did?


We assume Mechanism, so the answer is simply both, from the third person point 
of view, and only one, for each of the first person point of view obtained.




> What did the correct answer to the question turn out to be?


The question was the prediction of the next experience. The correct answer, 
remaining correc,t through the experience was the prediction “I will feel 
either W or M”, written “W v M”, keeping in mind that the question concerned 
the experience at the first person.

So it is “W v M”.



> Who wrote the diary?

The candidate of the experience.




> Is the one and only one referent to the personal pronoun “I” in the question 
> the Moscow man or the Washington man?

Anyone. We keep only the prediction assessed by all of them. In the big number 
iteration of that experience, the correct prediction is “white noise”.




> It can’t be the Helsinki man because today there is no Helsinki man.


That contradicts the local personal identity definition that you have agreed 
very often upon, and needed for the preceding step, to give sense that you ave 
survived the digital transplantation. In this duplicative case,  both the guy 
in M and in W are considered as digne living, survivors in the 
indexical-computationalist sense. They both are the Helsinki guy, but now in 
different contexts simultenously, which is not astonishing given that the 
Helsinki guy has been duplicated.

The personal identity is defined by the personal memories, well approximated by 
the content of the personal diary that the candidate take with him in the 
experience, and so are multiplied (from outside) although each first person 
obtained can count that it has only one diary at all times.


Bruno

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he 
has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made 
clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows 
already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Leo Tolstoy.








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

Re: Entanglement

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 3 May 2018, at 04:16, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> 
>> From: smitra mailto:smi...@zonnet.nl>>
>> 
>> On 02-05-2018 03:21, Brent Meeker wrote:
>> 
>> How will the person verify it?  Reversing the computation will reverse
>> the person and erase their memory.
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> It's a simple two step measurement process where you (as a virtual person 
>> simulated by the QC) perform a measurement that tells you that the spin 
>> (represented by a qubit) has been measured without giving you the result. 
>> And then you perform the next measurement where you actually measure the 
>> value of the spin component. It can then be shown that there exists a 
>> unitary transform that will restore the original spin state that will 
>> preserve the record of the first measurement.
>> 
>> Saibal
> 
> You can prove anything in a simulation, because you get to choose the 
> physical laws that will be obeyed. How do you know that the simulation will 
> bear any relation to reality? A measurement is something that leaves a 
> permanent (un-erasable) record.

But for Deutsch experiments, we don’t need to erase the information, only to 
discard it in the vanilla ways. That seems impossible because we are used to 
leaking environment, but if we can do a quantum computer, we can do that, and 
it means we did found ways to a sort of absolute isolation, measurement without 
interactions, (à-la Eiltzur Vaidman), etc.

With a quantum brain, a human can do that experience, and come back remembering 
well opening the box, and saying to itself “I definiitly saw the definite 
result”, but after the coming back he said "now despite I remember all that, I 
get a blank when trying to remember that specific result, I can’t recall it 
(and this despite the quantum brain “knows the answer”, but is well blocked by 
some quantum Freudian algorithm (grin).

I tend to think that the laws of physics are reversible. We live “in” a 
universal group. I bet nothing can be erased (I am aware of the Black Hole 
difficulties). With mechanism, this has to be justified from 
arithmetic/computer-science only, (to be able to use some theorems establishing 
what is quanta and what is qualia).

Bruno



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

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

Re: Entanglement

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 2 May 2018, at 10:53, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 3:36:31 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 29 Apr 2018, at 08:21, 'scerir' via Everything List 
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> IMO Schroedinger invented this manyworlds or manyminds or manywords 
>> interpretation.
>> 
> 
> The quote below seems to indicate that this is not the case, unless you agree 
> (with me, and Deutsch, …) that QM *is* the discovery of the many superposed 
> worlds/states/minds, and that the founder added the collapse postulate ONLY 
> to avoid the proliferation of the alternate worlds/states/minds. Everett is 
> just the guy who realise that the MW does not leads to a jelly quagmire of 
> everything, by taking the first person view (what he called subjective) of 
> the observers, as their memories get as much quasi orthogonal that the 
> results they could have attributed to a collapse. The collapse, and the 
> irreversibility is purely “subjective” (first person) and irreversible in 
> principle for *us*. To reverse the entire universal wave, we would need to go 
> outside the physical universe in some practical way, which, needless to say, 
> is rather difficult.
> 
> But I do agree with you, Schroedinger and Einstein understood that the 
> collapse was a problem for the rest of physics and philosophy. They were 
> rightly skeptical that Bohr and Heisenberg got the whole thing. Would have 
> they like Everett? Bohr just threw Everett out of his home, I have read 
> somewhere. I think Einstein would have prefer it to anything involving an 
> action at a distance, like Bohm’s theory (non local hidden variable theory). 
> Indeed, as you all know, Einstein told that he would have prefered to be a 
> plumber than be involved in a theory with some action-at-a distance.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> Relativity affirms action at a distance.

?

Relativity is born with Einstein trying, and succeeding, to eliminate the 
action at a distance in Newton’s theory of gravitation, and in Maxwell ’s 
theory of electromagnetism.

Einstein found physical indeterminacy, and physical action at a distance making 
no sense at all. But with the MW theory, neither the indeterminacy, nor the 
“action-at-distance” are physical. They are only local appearances. (Like we 
expect with digital mechanism).



> My sense is that Einstein would have found the MWI "repellent" (to quote 
> Weinberg).

Plausiby. But I guess Einstein would have found the MW far less conceptually 
repellent than physical action at a distance.


> He would have found it excessively ornate,

Or excessively elegant. Somehow, Everett is to Copenhagen what General 
relativity is to special direction, albeit in epistemological direction.

Everett is just the preceding theory (Copenhagen , that Schroedinger/Dirac/etc. 
 equation + collapse (and a strange dualist theory)), where Everett is just 
taking Schroedinger equation seriously. 

And then Everett confirmed the consequence of an even simpler theory, which is 
actually a theorem already of Peano Arithmetic. The theory that there is a 
universal machine. Now it is a theorem that all universal machine dreams that 
they are all universal machine, and they define a “consciousness flux” which 
differentiate into consistent, sound and unsound, theories and experiments, and 
first person experience, justifying, testable, the core of all geographical 
histories, the physical laws.

Why add a collapse axiom? To satisfy the ego to be unique? The “many-world” is 
only the wave equation, or the Heisenberg matrices, with an internal relative 
states interpretation, which requires only the Gleason measure. 



> or to quote Nietzsche when discussing Christianity, "rococo".  AG 


Which Christianity? Hypatia, who taught Plotinus Neoplatonism and Diophantus' 
Mathematics in Alexandria was confronted, at about +400, with two types of 
Christians. The educated one, knowing about Plato and discussing theology, and 
well versed in mathematics (which was a prerequisite in theology) and then a 
growing number of literalist radicals. Yet the emperor Constantin, who will 
convert to christianism is still an open minded christian, tempering the 
authoritarian *blasphemy*. It will take Justinian to call “pagan” or “heretic” 
(I think) the non confessional theologian, basically forbidding theology to 
science, and science to theology, enforcing their separation. It is normal that 
the most fundamental science get stolen by authoritarian powers (by definition: 
the original question was not much more than is mathematics or physics or 
something else where we must search the first principles?). 
Enlightenment will be transformed when theology is back at the faculty of 
science (as a domain of reason, even if it surfs at the limit of Reason, and 
explore the surrational in between the provable and the false (the true but not 
provable about us).

The God/Non-God debate hides the original more interesting question; Physical 
Universe or (Universal

Re: Entanglement

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 3 maggio 2018 alle 16.28 Bruno Marchal  ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> > > On 1 May 2018, at 18:13, 'scerir' via Everything List < 
> everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com > 
> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > > Il 1 maggio 2018 alle 17.36 Bruno Marchal < 
> > marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be > ha scritto:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > > > On 29 Apr 2018, at 08:21, 
> > > 'scerir' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> > > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > IMO Schroedinger invented this manyworlds or manyminds 
> > > > or manywords interpretation.
> > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > The quote below seems to indicate that this is not the case, 
> > > unless you agree (with me, and Deutsch, …) that QM *is* the discovery of 
> > > the many superposed worlds/states/minds, and that the founder added the 
> > > collapse postulate ONLY to avoid the proliferation of the alternate 
> > > worlds/states/minds.
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > Yes, I can agree with that. But it is possible there was, in those 
> > years, another issue too. I mean conservation of energy. It is not 
> > possible, in general, to preserve conservation of energy in each universe 
> > during the split-decoherence, especially in case of superposition of states 
> > of different energy. In this special case energy increase in one universe 
> > and decrease in another universe. 
> > 
> > > 
> The conservation of energy seems to me to be a classical, and mainly 
> statistical notion. I do not see why the many-universes would violate 
> thermodynamics in any branches, given that, by linearity of evolution, each 
> branch evolves independently of the others, and the branches can only 
> interfere, statistically, from the first person perspective of the observer. 
> I am not even sure how we could superpose two states with different energy. 
> May be you could explain me this.
> 
> Bruno
> 

The worlds are not autonomous during the split (decoherence process) of the 
original unique world.

"Now, there isn't really a story to tell about what the total energy in 
individual universes is during that whole process [of measurement]. Because the 
universes are not autonomous during it. But one thing's for sure, there is no 
way of construing it so that the energy in each particular universe is 
conserved, for the simple reason that the whole system starts out the same on 
each run of the experiment (before the non-sharp state is created), and ends up 
different". --David Deutsch

In a superposition of states of different energy I am inclined to think 
(naively) that  the energy of the superposition state lies in between the 
energy of its constituents. Actually the theory only states there are 
expectation values, that is to say what you get if you perform many 
measurements, and then you average. Now the measurement process itself is an 
"interaction" with the superposition state, and I do not know whether this 
interaction, in the MWI, is unitary or not.

"In more general cases, where there are superpositions of states of different 
energy, energy can increase in one universe at the cost of decreasing in 
another." --David Deutsch

But let us read Hartle here https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9410006

http://blog.jessriedel.com/2015/08/23/how-to-think-about-quantum-mechanics-part-6-energy-conservation-and-wavefunction-branches/

.

> 
> 
> 
> > > 
> > > > > Everett is just the guy who realise that the 
> > MW does not leads to a jelly quagmire of everything, by taking the first 
> > person view (what he called subjective) of the observers, as their memories 
> > get as much quasi orthogonal that the results they could have attributed to 
> > a collapse. The collapse, and the irreversibility is purely “subjective” 
> > (first person) and irreversible in principle for *us*. To reverse the 
> > entire universal wave, we would need to go outside the physical universe in 
> > some practical way, which, needless to say, is rather difficult.
> > > 
> > > But I do agree with you, Schroedinger and Einstein understood 
> > > that the collapse was a problem for the rest of physics and philosophy. 
> > > They were rightly skeptical that Bohr and Heisenberg got the whole thing. 
> > > Would have they like Everett? Bohr just threw Everett out of his home, I 
> > > have read somewhere. I think Einstein would have prefer it to anything 
> > > involving an action at a distance, like Bohm’s theory (non local hidden 
> > > variable theory). Indeed, as you all know, Einstein told that he would 
> > > have prefered to be a plumber than be involved in a theory with some 
> > > action-at-a distance.
> > > 
> > > Bruno
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > >

Re: Entanglement

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 1 May 2018, at 20:47, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/1/2018 9:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 29 Apr 2018, at 19:59, Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 4/29/2018 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 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?
 
 Because in Deutsch experiment, not everything has been erased, notably the 
 memory that he has known the result. He would say something like: I 
 remember doing the measurement and writing it in the enveloppe. Now the 
 envelop has been erased, and I can’t remember its content, but I 
 definitely remember having known the content. 
>>> 
>>> But two questions remain.  First, the empirical question of whether this 
>>> erasure is enough to restore interference. 
>> 
>> I do not see why it would not been enough … in theory. You need only a 
>> computer able to forget a memory, but not some meta-memory that it has 
>> recorded a definite result. It isa bit like remembering we have done a 
>> dream, without being able to remember any of its content.
>> 
>> In practice, that might be very difficult, if not impossible. I am not sure.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Second, why should we believe the quantum computer. 
>> 
>> In Deutsch proposal, it is a human.
> 
> No, it's a conscious quantum computer. 

Yes. I was thinking to a human having said “yes” to a quantum digital doctor, 
but of course any Löbian machine accepting a quantum digital transplant would 
work. That is needed to avoid full decoherence, and fusing the memories to 
regain the interference of what the observer has seen. Obviously. (Not a quasi 
classical human). And that helps us to believe it, as it is like any human 
being, and not a mysterious unknown machine or alien.



> It it were a human or other (quasi-) classical instrument decoherence would 
> happen when there was a detection of welcher weg and erasure would be 
> impossible.

Absolutely. I was obviously thinking of a human with a quantum brain (which 
really any computer with enough “isolation” from the environment, which needs 
some topological “reliable” qubits (it is a thought experiment, it will not be 
done so soon!).

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
>> And we can repeat the experience with many humans. If they have all that 
>> feeling of having done a measurement and have obtained a definite record 
>> without being able to say which one, I think this coule be taken as making 
>> the MWI more plausible than the Mono-W.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> It is not like the classical case in which there is a fact-of-them-matter 
>>> about which slit I observed and I've simply forgotten it.  But by quantum 
>>> erasing the information, there is no fact-of-the-matter as to welcher weg, 
>>> so what can it mean that the quantum consciousness once knew it and now 
>>> remembers something that didn't happen.
>> 
>> I don’t think we need a quantum consciousness. It is just the usual “comp 
>> consciousness”. The consciousness differentiate into “I see up in a definite 
>> way” + “I see down in a definite way”. Both separates the memories of up 
>> (resp. down) from the meta-memory “What I saw was definite”, and then we 
>> erase only the memories of “up” and “down”, taking care to not erase the 
>> meta-memory, so both consciousness can fuse again, with the meta-memory of 
>> having see an single outcome, but cannot tell which one, and in principle we 
>> can get (back) the interference of up and down, as the meta-memory is 
>> independent of it (in principle).
>> 
>> The something did happen (well with MW), only the memories of it has been 
>> completely erased, like in the usual quantum erasing experience. 
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>>> 

Re: Entanglement

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 1 May 2018, at 18:13, 'scerir' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Il 1 maggio 2018 alle 17.36 Bruno Marchal  ha scritto: 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 29 Apr 2018, at 08:21, 'scerir' via Everything List < 
>>> everything-list@googlegroups.com > 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> IMO Schroedinger invented this manyworlds or manyminds or manywords 
>>> interpretation.
>>> 
>> 
>> The quote below seems to indicate that this is not the case, unless you 
>> agree (with me, and Deutsch, …) that QM *is* the discovery of the many 
>> superposed worlds/states/minds, and that the founder added the collapse 
>> postulate ONLY to avoid the proliferation of the alternate 
>> worlds/states/minds.
> 
> Yes, I can agree with that. But it is possible there was, in those years, 
> another issue too. I mean conservation of energy. It is not possible, in 
> general, to preserve conservation of energy in each universe during the 
> split-decoherence, especially in case of superposition of states of different 
> energy. In this special case energy increase in one universe and decrease in 
> another universe.  
> 

The conservation of energy seems to me to be a classical, and mainly 
statistical notion. I do not see why the many-universes would violate 
thermodynamics in any branches, given that, by linearity of evolution, each 
branch evolves independently of the others, and the branches can only 
interfere, statistically, from the first person perspective of the observer. I 
am not even sure how we could superpose two states with different energy. May 
be you could explain me this.

Bruno




>> Everett is just the guy who realise that the MW does not leads to a jelly 
>> quagmire of everything, by taking the first person view (what he called 
>> subjective) of the observers, as their memories get as much quasi orthogonal 
>> that the results they could have attributed to a collapse. The collapse, and 
>> the irreversibility is purely “subjective” (first person) and irreversible 
>> in principle for *us*. To reverse the entire universal wave, we would need 
>> to go outside the physical universe in some practical way, which, needless 
>> to say, is rather difficult.
>> 
>> But I do agree with you, Schroedinger and Einstein understood that the 
>> collapse was a problem for the rest of physics and philosophy. They were 
>> rightly skeptical that Bohr and Heisenberg got the whole thing. Would have 
>> they like Everett? Bohr just threw Everett out of his home, I have read 
>> somewhere. I think Einstein would have prefer it to anything involving an 
>> action at a distance, like Bohm’s theory (non local hidden variable theory). 
>> Indeed, as you all know, Einstein told that he would have prefered to be a 
>> plumber than be involved in a theory with some action-at-a distance.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
 Il 28 aprile 2018 alle 23.01 agrayson2...@gmail.com 
  ha scritto: 
 
 
 
 On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 5:55:16 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
 
 
 
> I think Schroedinger and his cat bear some responsibility.  In trying to 
> debunk Born's probabilistic interpretation he appealed to the absurdity 
> of observation changing the physical state...even though no one had 
> actually proposed that.  
> 
> Brent 
> 
 
 “The idea that the alternate measurement outcomes be not alternatives but 
 all really happening simultaneously seems lunatic to the quantum theorist, 
 just impossible. He thinks that if the laws of nature took this form for, 
 let me say, a quarter of an hour, we should find our surroundings rapidly 
 turning into a quagmire, a sort of a featureless jelly or plasma, all 
 contours becoming blurred, we ourselves probably becoming jelly fish. It 
 is strange that he should believe this. For I understand he grants that 
 unobserved nature does behave this way – namely according to the wave 
 equation. . . . according to the quantum theorist, nature is prevented 
 from rapid jellification only by our perceiving or observing it.”
 
 -Erwin Schroedinger, The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Dublin 
 Seminars (1949-1955) and Other Unpublished Assays (Ox Bow Press, 
 Woodbridge, Connecticut, 1995).
 
 
 Who is Schrodinger referring to? This was written before 1957, when 
 Everett published his MWI.? Were other theorists advancing the idea that 
 all alternatives are physically manifested in reality? 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 
 

Re: Entanglement of macro objects

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 1 May 2018, at 13:02, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 3:53:19 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> 
> It assumes? Or does it entail the appearance of the classical-like structure? 
>  What you say is very interesting, but I have not yet much understanding of 
> QM+gravity. My own non expert and non rigorous (old) attempt leads to … to 
> much white holes: there should be almost everywhere, but … I will need to 
> revise a bit of differential geometry (where I am not so much at ease).
> 
> I use the word assume to mean acquire. The system acquire more classical 
> properties and nonlocality is virtually gone.

If “acquire” means “physically acquire”, that view could be problematic with 
the computationalist assumption. But that would be long to explain just here. 
With mechanism we assume a simple classical (boolean) reality (arithmetic for 
example), and explain all non classical logics by the constraints of 
self-referential correctness, which makes all "empirical logics” non classical.

Bruno


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

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[John Clark]

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​>>​
>> I don't have a main dogma but if I did it would be information not matter.
>
>
> ​> ​
> *That contradicts you argument where you were to matter needed for a
> computation to just exist.*
>

I don't think so. A random collection of atoms is unlikely to be able to
perform a calculation and a random collection of mathematical symbols is
unlikely to be a proof of anything. In both cases the interesting part is
not the individual atoms or the individual mathematical symbols, it is the
way they are organized. That's why I said information is as close as you
can get to the traditional religious concept of the soul and still remain
within the scientific method.



> ​>* ​*
> *If not, where is the problem to accept the facts that not only the
> arithmetical reality contains all computations,*
>

All correct arithmetical mathematical calculations may exist in some
mystical Platonic universe and all possible books may too, but you need
matter to sort out the correct calculations from the incorrect ones and the
good books from the gibberish
​;​
matter in the form of a calculating machine in one case and the author
Jorge Luis Borges in the other.

​ 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: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 30 Apr 2018, at 19:52, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/30/2018 1:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 27 Apr 2018, at 20:27, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 4/27/2018 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 Also false: I use faith to distinguish the truth we suspect and hope for, 
 and the truth we verify or prove in some theory.  Of course, in “serious 
 metaphysics”, the term are made more precise. You need already faith to 
 believe the sun will rise tomorrow, but in the everyday life we just 
 forget this, and wisely so. Yet in metaphysics we have to be more careful 
 and precise.
>>> You forget the faith that distinguishes the falsehoods we hope for from the 
>>> truths we'd rather not believe but which the evidence points to.
>> 
>> Where?
>> 
>> You might elaborate. I do not understand.
> 
> The common example is belief in life-after-death, something believed on 
> faith, as all the evidence is against it, but all the hope is for it. 

Mechanism, or even just with QM without collapse, provides more reason to doubt 
that death is a (first person) ending than the contrary. You need a primary 
matter (or a magical god) to sustain a mind-brain identity thesis allowing you 
to end from your first person view.
And that is not hope, but more like terrifying thinking, especially that we 
survive the nearest place from where we die (in the eyes of the others in the 
normal history), making the idea of agony, especially when it is painful, even 
more frightening.

As there is no evidence at all for primary matter, and strong evidences for 
mechanism, the ending conception of death, the “rest in peace” might be the 
wishful thinking. Things might be more subtle than naive materialism wants us 
to believe.





> It was a common idea which Julian Jaynes provides one possible explanation.  
> Plato built a whole morality tale around it.

Plato is vast. Which text are you referring too? 



> 
>> If someone believe anything because it is hope or wishful thinking, that is 
>> blind faith, and has few things to do with faith from evidence, usually 
>> based on adductive induction, which is reasonable by default, but prove 
>> nothing. As long as it works, it is the best option, but we have to remember 
>> that is a theory, a question.
>> 
>> It is the separation of theology from science which makes some people 
>> believing that in science we can prove things about reality, but that is bad 
>> metaphysics. We can’t. We cannot even prove that there is a reality, that is 
>> what the greeks understood in the metaphysical/theological domain. And that 
>> is what the Churches of all kinds want us to forget.
> I agree with that.  But you seem to imply that there is a separate discipline 
> "theology" which can prove there is a reality

Not at all. When theology is done with the scientific method, the notion of 
reality, and its nature, are interrogated, in the form of theoretical 
hypothesis, like materialism, deisme, or the sober Pythagorean arithmeticalism 
(close to the theology of the universal machine), This is done in a precise way 
so that the assumption can be debunked, refuted, and at the least, freely 
discussed around a table and a black board.

The problem is that the God/non-God debate hides the original questions and 
insight: the material reality might be only an appearance growing from a 
simpler reality. That was the debate among the early theologians and spiritual 
inquirers. 

Unfortunately, that debate has been made impossible by the persecution and 
banishing of all -thinkers in that domain, and, as I have lived, still today, a 
non negligeable part of the academicians can just not accept the idea that 
physics is not the fundamental science (actually the physicists are the more 
open minded here: the opposition comes mainly from non-physicists, and 
especially materialist philosophers). We have just not the right to doubt 
primary matter, despite today we have not yet find any evidence for it. Of 
course, the knocking table argument is how some philosophers, like Aristotle, 
identify the matter that we see with the primary matter. But that cannot work 
with mechanism, which has been used by materialist to eliminate the mind-body 
problem, when it can only be used to formulate it. To grasp this, people must 
be familiarised with the original discovery of the notion of computability by 
mathematicians, and which does not rely on any material or physical ontological 
commitment. 




> and tell us about it.  Yet theologians have been nothing but muddled armchair 
> philosophers supporting the political power of organized religions.

That is unfair. Most who have resisted the authoritarians have been burned 
alive or persecuted in one way or another. You forget that theology has not yet 
come back to science since 1500 years. What you call theologian has few things 
to do with the scientific method, although many are not failed like Trouillard 
or Valadier in France, 

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 30 Apr 2018, at 16:26, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:12 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
>> ​>​>>​ ​like most pseudo-religious believers.
>> 
>> ​​>>​Aren't you creative enough to think of at least one new insult? ​ 
> 
> ​>​You illustrate that the God/Non-God debate is a trick in between 
> materialist (believer in Aristotle
> 
> Aren't you creative enough to refer to an authority who could at least pass a 
> fourth grade science test?
>  
> ​> ​the original question asked by the Indians and the greeks​  [...] ​ with 
> respect to Aristotle theology 
> 
> ​Well I guess not.​
> 
> ​> ​You illustrate that so called atheists defend the main dogma of the 
> church Matter.
> 
> I don't have a main dogma but if I did it would be information not matter.


That contradicts you argument where you were to matter needed for a computation 
to just exist. If not, where is the problem to accept the facts that not only 
the arithmetical reality contains all computations, but also executes them (in 
the model, not the theory: the execution is semantical, based on the notion of 
truth).

Bruno




> If you’ve seen one hydrogen atom you’ve seen them all, matter only starts to 
> do really interesting stuff when it is organized in certain ways.   
> 
> ​> ​“pseudo-religious believer” is not an insult,
> Then BULLSHIT is not a insult either so stop whining about ad hominem.
> 
> ​> ​Non agnostic atheism is indeed a fake religion​.
> Now you sound like Trump. I'm sorry that was a low blow, you’re not 
> *that* bad. Actually what you say is true, non agnostic atheism is indeed a 
> fake religion, in other words it is not a religion at all.
> 
> 
>  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.