Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​>>​
>> ​Nobody has ever seen a demonstration of a non-physical calculation in a
>> book and nobody ever will.
>
>
> ​>* ​*
> *That contradicts all publication in the field.*
>

Maybe that's true if your field is flying saucer men in Roswell New Mexico
or other varieties of junk science, but show me one citation from the
journal Nature or Science or Physical Review Letters or The Journal of
Applied Physics demonstrating a non-physical calculation. Just one will do.
​

> > *You seem to never have open any book nor paper in that subject*


That's because opening a book requires energy as does performing
calculations, and pure numbers are unable to give me any energy so I am
unable to open a book much less perform a calculation.

​> ​
the whole point will be that there is nothing unique concerning any
computations.
​ ​
All are implemented in infinitely many ways in Arithmetic.

​
Yes and out of those infinitely many ways of doing arithmetic all but one
of them is incorrect, that is to say only one of those ways is compatible
with physical reality and that is the one the sheep herder who invented
arithmetic many thousands of years ago decided to use because it was the
only one that helped him with his job.

Your fundamental blunder is you've forgotten what a function is, you've
forgotten what your high school algebra teacher said on the very first day
of class, he said a function is a machine, you put something into it and if
you perform the calculations it says to perform something different will
come out. A function is instructions written in a very compact form but by
itself it can't do anything. A cake recipe is not a cake nor can it make a
cake without the help of a baker, a baker that is made of matter that obeys
the laws of physics.

​>​
>> but physics can.
>
>
> *Really?*
>

​Yes really.​


> *​> ​How?*
>

​With NAND and NOR circuits made from mechanical rods ratchets and gears or
vacuum tubes or transistors or microchips or some other arrangement of
matter that obeys the laws of physics, such as the neurons in the bone box
on your shoulders.


> ​*>​*
> *If mechanism is true, I don’t see how that primary matter can influence
> consciousness or create it*
>

It does not make the slightest difference if you understand the connection
between matter and consciousness or not because it remains a experimental
FACT that when your brain changes your consciousness changes and when your
consciousness changes you brain changes. Matter doesn't care that you have
not figgured out how matter produces consciousness , matter does it does it
anyway.


> *​>​without invoking some non Turing computable,​ ​and non FPI
> recoverable, notions.*
>

Nobody has ever provided even the tiniest speck of evidence that there is a
connection between Turing non-computability and consciousness other than
consciousness is sorta weird and non-computability is sorta weird.

​>​
> *A book cannot make a computation, trivially, but a number, relatively to
> other numbers, do it, thanks to the laws of addition and multiplication.*
>

​Why those rules when there are a infinite number of ways two numbers can
be associated with a third number? Because even though the sheep herder who
invented arithmetic lived thousands of years before Newton he knew
intuitively that only one of those ways was compatible with the laws of
physics.

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: Radioactive Decay States

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/4/2018 1:57 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:


*No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of 
states is wrong. Although I have asked several times, no one here 
seems able to offer a plausible justification for interpreting that a 
system in a superposition of states, is physically in all states of 
the superposition SIMULTANEOUSLY before the system is measured. If we 
go back to those little pointing things, you will see there exists an 
infinite uncountable set of basis vectors for any vector in that 
linear vector space. For quantum systems, there is no unique basis, 
and in many cases also infinitely many bases, So IMO, the 
interpretation is not justified. AG*


***SIMULTANEOUSLY*** was used by EPR in their paper, but that did not 
have much meaning (operationally, physically).


Can we say that the observable, in a superposition state, has a 
***DEFINITE*** value between two measurements?


No - in general - we cannot say that.



It's in some definite state.  But it may be a state for which we have no 
measurement operator or don't intend to measure; so we say it is in a 
superposition, meaning a superposition of the eigenstates we're going to 
measure.  So it does not have one of the eigenvalues of our measurement.


Brent

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

Re: Raddioactive decay states

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 Jul 2018, at 02:06, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 6:23:10 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 21 Jun 2018, at 23:56, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> Why don't we observe the pure states, decayed + undecayed, or decayed - 
>> undecayed? TIA, AG
> 
> 
> We “observe them indirectly” by the interferences, which eventually requires 
> some bases corresponding to the one our brain has been implemented in, by a 
> long evolutionary process. Mainly the Gaussian means of position and momentum.
> 
> First part interesting. Will give it more thought. Are you claiming that at 
> some time much earlier in our evolution, we were able to observe the now 
> apparently contradictory pure states I wrote above?

I don’t know. That seems a bit far stretched. Zurek’s use of decoherence 
suggests that any physical machine might need the position base to have the 
sufficiently orthogonal state to emulate a classical machine, but I am not 
entirely convinced by this analysis. I have provided argument that the 
“position” base might be how any base looks like from the view of classical 
machine in that base, but this might be false too, according to physicists 
friends, but it is hard to be sure at this stage to me. As I approach this from 
another direction (cognitive science, metaphysics) such problem are premature.





> When was that; at the time of Homo erectus, or earlier when Lucy around, even 
> earlier, or IMO never?

It would be more like after 10^(-20) seconds after the Big-Bang, if that was 
true.





> As for position and momentum, if one tries to locate the edge of an object 
> using the shadow it produces, the edge is ill-defined depending on the 
> frequency of light being used. So I don't see this phenomenon is in any way 
> related, or an answer to my question. AG


With computationalism, you need the ability to make distinction, and this 
requires sufficiently well defined computational state. The fuzziness concerns 
only what you don’t know. If you want, a particle seem to travel to all slits 
at once only because your mental state is independent or isolated from which 
slit the particles is going through, so that you are really multiplied 
accordingly to each such events. The MWI can been seen as a special sort of 
hidden variable theory, where the hidden variable is the branche of the wave 
function where your memories makes sense. You cannot see a cat being death and 
alive simultaneously, because to see a cat, you need to see it in the base 
already chosen by your brain, through history. But you can see the cat being 
alive and dead, in the sense that you can detect that state in principles, by 
isolating the cat enough from you. It is just technically impossible, with a 
macro-cat, to isolate it sufficiently well to build a device making it 
associate with some usual experience. We have a very long quasi-classical 
history which has chosen the base in which we can do the necessary distinction 
to have a computational mind.

Bruno








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

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

Re: Radioactive Decay States

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Il 4 luglio 2018 alle 2.37 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 1:21:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > > > > On 23 Jun 2018, at 00:13, agrays...@gmail.com 
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 10:13:37 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell 
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 
> > > 6:48:53 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:18:25 PM UTC, 
> > > > > Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > The 
> > > > > emergent nuclear interaction occurs on a time scale of 
> > > > > 10^{-22}seconds. The superposition of a decayed and nondecayed 
> > > > > nucleus occurs in that time before decoherence.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > Is that calculated / postulated if the 
> > > > > radioactive source interacts with its environment? Can't it be 
> > > > > isolated for a longer duration? If so, what does that imply about 
> > > > > being in the pure states mentioned above? AG
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > Quantum physics experiments on nonlocality are done 
> > > > usually with optical and IR energy photons. The reason is that 
> > > > techniques exist for making these sort of measurements and materials 
> > > > are such that one can pass photons through beam splitters or hold 
> > > > photons in entanglements in mirrored cavities and the rest. At higher 
> > > > energy up into the X-ray domain such physics becomes very difficult. At 
> > > > intermediate energy where you have nuclear physics of nucleons and 
> > > > mesons and further at higher energy of elementary particles things 
> > > > become impossible. This is why in QFT there are procedures for 
> > > > constructing operators that have nontrivial commutations on and in the 
> > > > light cone so nonlocal physics does not intrude into phenomenology. 
> > > > Such physics is relevant on a tiny scale compared to the geometry of 
> > > > your detectors.
> > > > 
> > > > LC
> > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > I've been struggling lately with how to interpret a 
> > > superposition of states when it is ostensibly unintelligible, e.g., a cat 
> > > alive and dead simultaneously, or a radioactive source decayed and 
> > > undecayed simultaneously. If we go back to the vector space consisting of 
> > > those "little pointing things", it follows that any vector which is a sum 
> > > of other vectors, simultaneously shares the properties of the components 
> > > in its sum. This is simple and obvious. I therefore surmise that since a 
> > > Hilbert space is a linear vector space, this interpretation took hold as 
> > > a natural interpretation of superpositions in quantum mechanics, and led 
> > > to Schroedinger's cat paradox. I don't accept the explanation of 
> > > decoherence theory, that we never see these unintelligible superpositions 
> > > because of virtually instantaneous entanglements with the environment. 
> > > Decoherence doesn't explain why certain bases are stable; others not, 
> > > even though, apriori, all bases in a linear vector space are equivalent. 
> > > These considerations lead me to the conclusion that a quantum 
> > > superposition of states is just a calculational tool, and when the 
> > > superposition consists of orthogonal component states, it allows us to 
> > > calculate the probabilities of the measured system transitioning to the 
> > > state of any component. In this interpretation, essentially the CI, there 
> > > remains the unsolved problem of providing a mechanism for the transition 
> > > from the SWE, to the collapse to one of the eigenfunctions when the the 
> > > measurement occurs. I prefer to leave that as an unsolved problem, than 
> > > accept the extravagance of the MWI, or decoherence theory, which IMO 
> > > doesn't explain the paradoxes referred to above, but rather executes what 
> > > amounts to a punt, claiming the paradoxes exist for short times so can be 
> > > viewed as nonexistent, or solved. AG.
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > It is not for short time, it is forever.
> > 
> > > 
> No way forever; at least not the claim of decoherence theory, which was 
> the context of my comment. For decoherence theory, the time is very, very 
> short. I say it is zero, insofar as the instrument has ample time to decohere 
> long before it is associated with any experiment. AG
>  
> 
> > > You are just postulating that QM is wrong, which is 
> indeed what the Copenhagen theory suggest.
> > 
> > > 
> No. I am asserting that the INTERPRETATION of the superposition of states 
> is wrong. Although I