date:20191006



On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 6:04:22 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 2:50:51 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 1:27:49 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 11:41:25 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:

 On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 7:57:59 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> They came to equilibrium, and what thermal fluctuations that deviated 
> away from equilibrium were "ironed out" by inflation. 
>

 It's the "ironed out" that I don't understand. If there were some 
 fluctuations, small deviations from thermal equilibrium, why would a 
 sudden 
 expansion attenuate them? It makes more sense to me that the universe was 
 already very close to thermal equilibrium during inflation, and inflation 
 *preserved* this state. BTW, I am not "belaboring" anything here; 
 rather, I am trying to resolve, or possibly modify, a key element of the 
 inflation model. AG

>>>
>>> This is why these post with you drive me nuts. It is for the same reason 
>>> that if waves are stretched out they are made more IR. If clumps are 
>>> stretched out, think hard speed bump vs a soft one that is spread out, or 
>>> if curvatures are stretched these occur on a low energy or larger scale.
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>
>> Bruce has a dim view of inflation theory. He says it's a solution seeking 
>> a problem. He doesn't say, but if it's related to the present large scale 
>> homogeneity of the observable universe, it raises the issue of whether, 
>> just before or during inflation, the universe was already in thermal 
>> equiibrium. It's a reasonable question because, throughout that time, the 
>> universe was extraordinarily tiny and in causally connected. What's lacking 
>> in your reply, and possibly in the theory supporting inflation ON THIS 
>> PARTICULAR ISSUE, is a rigorous definition of thermal equilibrium, and 
>> whether the time scale of inflation (its duration), the size of the 
>> universe during that time, and the SoL, whether thermal equilibrium is 
>> definitely ruled OUT. Maybe it deviated by just one part in 100,000 and 
>> this is what is measured in the CMBR. If the question drives you nuts, it's 
>> probably because, to some extent, you share the world-view of the ruling 
>> elite in ancient Greece who found the questions of Socrates intolerable and 
>> insisted he drink the hemlock. My method is to test the claims of theories, 
>> and the more polemic the answers, the less confidence I have in their truth 
>> value.  That said, I thank you for the plausible information that particles 
>> became manifest with the decay of the original vacuum. AG
>>
>
> These questions by you drive me crazy because they go around and around. 
>

It's your problem, not mine; sort of an intolerance for detailed dialogue 
on deep and confusing issues. AG 

>
> Bruce is very conservative, too conservative I think. Inflation makes some 
> sense out of things, and while it is not a fundamental theory, it does push 
> ignorance back. It also has some measure of observational support. 
>

I agree with inflation wrt the flatness problem. Not sure exactly which 
part of inflation Bruce finds questionable. AG 

>
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4433c8fc-3b03-4c71-9920-1b2cb01160e9%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Inflation

2019-10-06 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 2:50:51 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 1:27:49 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 11:41:25 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 7:57:59 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:



 They came to equilibrium, and what thermal fluctuations that deviated 
 away from equilibrium were "ironed out" by inflation. 

>>>
>>> It's the "ironed out" that I don't understand. If there were some 
>>> fluctuations, small deviations from thermal equilibrium, why would a sudden 
>>> expansion attenuate them? It makes more sense to me that the universe was 
>>> already very close to thermal equilibrium during inflation, and inflation 
>>> *preserved* this state. BTW, I am not "belaboring" anything here; 
>>> rather, I am trying to resolve, or possibly modify, a key element of the 
>>> inflation model. AG
>>>
>>
>> This is why these post with you drive me nuts. It is for the same reason 
>> that if waves are stretched out they are made more IR. If clumps are 
>> stretched out, think hard speed bump vs a soft one that is spread out, or 
>> if curvatures are stretched these occur on a low energy or larger scale.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> Bruce has a dim view of inflation theory. He says it's a solution seeking 
> a problem. He doesn't say, but if it's related to the present large scale 
> homogeneity of the observable universe, it raises the issue of whether, 
> just before or during inflation, the universe was already in thermal 
> equiibrium. It's a reasonable question because, throughout that time, the 
> universe was extraordinarily tiny and in causally connected. What's lacking 
> in your reply, and possibly in the theory supporting inflation ON THIS 
> PARTICULAR ISSUE, is a rigorous definition of thermal equilibrium, and 
> whether the time scale of inflation (its duration), the size of the 
> universe during that time, and the SoL, whether thermal equilibrium is 
> definitely ruled OUT. Maybe it deviated by just one part in 100,000 and 
> this is what is measured in the CMBR. If the question drives you nuts, it's 
> probably because, to some extent, you share the world-view of the ruling 
> elite in ancient Greece who found the questions of Socrates intolerable and 
> insisted he drink the hemlock. My method is to test the claims of theories, 
> and the more polemic the answers, the less confidence I have in their truth 
> value.  That said, I thank you for the plausible information that particles 
> became manifest with the decay of the original vacuum. AG
>

These questions by you drive me crazy because they go around and around. 

Bruce is very conservative, too conservative I think. Inflation makes some 
sense out of things, and while it is not a fundamental theory, it does push 
ignorance back. It also has some measure of observational support. 

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d01d4cc7-5799-4df2-848b-99a9620578eb%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is



On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 3:46:19 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/6/2019 4:33 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 6:03:29 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: 
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:23 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>> When Alice and Bob are separated, and measure their particles state, the 
>>> MWI only ask that whatever they found will be correlated. In the world 
>>> where Alice finds “up", Bob will find "down", and in the world where Alice 
>>> finds “down”Bob will find “up”. But without any FTL action at a distance.
>>>
>>>
>> OK. So what is the explanation for this aspect of MWI? I am asking for a 
>> local causal physical explanation for the observed facts. Nothing else will 
>> suffice at this point.
>>
>>
>> Aspect took a long amount of work to ensure that light has not the time 
>>> to bring the correlation, and as the choice of “Alice”’s direction of spin 
>>> measurement is arbitrary, unless you bring t’Hooft super determinism, the 
>>> influence has to be FTL. Not so in the MWI.
>>>
>>
>> The influence is non-local, that does not imply FTL. If there is no 
>> non-local influence in MWI, how is the observed correlation formed? Just 
>> answer the question.
>>
>>
>> Well, I have looked at  your "explanations", and at a lot of other MWI 
>>> so-called explanations, and not one of them has been satisfactory. These 
>>> "explanations" are either hopelessly vague, or they misunderstand what is 
>>> required, or, like Wallace, they simply wimp out of any explanation at all. 
>>> If you can do better, then do it. But despite years of asking, you still 
>>> have not come up with any credible explanation.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is the same as the one in Price FAQ, or in  Tipler’s paper, and it is 
>>> coherent with Deutsch-Hayden one, if recatsed in a many histories approach.
>>>
>>
>> And I have, on many occasions, shown that these approaches are not 
>> successful in eliminating the non-locality. Price and Tipler, indeed, just 
>> reproduce the standard non-local quantum account. If you are so convinced 
>> that these papers give a fully local explanation for the violation of the 
>> Bell inequalities, then reproduce the argument here so that we can agree on 
>> what, exactly, we are talking about.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
>
>
> EPR and Many Worlds has been "worked out" many rimes before, but hasn't 
> really changed the world.
>
> http://settheory.net/many-worlds
>
> The idea is to dismiss the reality of the collapse, consider that the 
> deterministic evolution without collapse is all what happens, and admit a 
> persisting coexistence of all possibilities in parallel worlds, in each of 
> which things would only "look as if" the collapse happened.
>
> *The Many-worlds interpretation of the EPR paradox*
>
> Imagine a pair of entangled particles, that will be simultaneously 
> measured, each in a specific way, by Alice and Bob, such that for each, the 
> probability is 1/2 to find heads or tails, but globally there is only 10% 
> probability that they get the same result.
>
> So, Alice seeing her measurement result evolves into a superposition (or 
> split) between 2 mental states : Alice-head and Alice-tail, with the same 
> weight of 1/2 each.
>
> In the same way, Bob evolves into a superposition (or splits) into 2 
> copies : Bob-head and Bob-tail, each with weight 1/2.
>
>
> "Evolves into" is just MWI-speak for wf collapse into separate worlds.  
> This doesn't solve the problem of why Alice and Bob's worlds are correlated.
>
> Then, Alice and Bob meet again.
>
> Alice-head sees Bob in a superposition of states, composed of 10% of 
> Bob-head and 90% of Bob-tail,
> Alice-tail sees Bob in its remaining states, that is a combination of 90% 
> of Bob-head with 10% of Bob-tail.
> Bob-head sees Alice as in a superposition of states, composed of 10% of 
> Alice-head and 90% of Alice-tail
> Bob-tail sees Alice in a combination of 90% of Alice-head with 10% of 
> Alice-tail.
>
>
> But that's the problem.  How do they come to have these combinations 
> instead of 50/50.  If you suppose it's something about the wf, then it's 
> non-local because the wf is non-local.  If you suppose it's something that 
> happens because of the interaction between the "worlds" then that something 
> was determined non-locally in the setup using correlated particles.
>
> Brent
>
>
> Then, Alice tells Bob her measurement result.
> For her this changes essentially nothing :
> When Alice-head says "head" she sees Bob as deterministically evolving 
> from the mixture (10% of Bob-head + 90% of Bob-tail), into the mixture (10% 
> of Bob-head-head + 90% of Bob-tail-head) ; and similarly for Alice-tail who 
> says "Tail".
>
> But bob's experience here is a bit different :
> Bob-head sees Alice's state collapsing from the undetermined state of (10% 
> Alice-head + 90% Alice-tail), into either Alice-head (with 10% probability) 
> or Alice-tail (with 90% probability); this splits himself between 
> Bob-head-head and

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-06 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 10/6/2019 4:33 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 6:03:29 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:23 PM Bruno Marchal > wrote:


When Alice and Bob are separated, and measure their particles
state, the MWI only ask that whatever they found will be
correlated. In the world where Alice finds “up", Bob will
find "down", and in the world where Alice finds “down”Bob
will find “up”. But without any FTL action at a distance.



OK. So what is the explanation for this aspect of MWI? I am asking
for a local causal physical explanation for the observed facts.
Nothing else will suffice at this point.


Aspect took a long amount of work to ensure that light has not
the time to bring the correlation, and as the choice of
“Alice”’s direction of spin measurement is arbitrary, unless
you bring t’Hooft super determinism, the influence has to be
FTL. Not so in the MWI.


The influence is non-local, that does not imply FTL. If there is
no non-local influence in MWI, how is the observed correlation
formed? Just answer the question.



Well, I have looked at  your "explanations", and at a lot of
other MWI so-called explanations, and not one of them has
been satisfactory. These "explanations" are either hopelessly
vague, or they misunderstand what is required, or, like
Wallace, they simply wimp out of any explanation at all. If
you can do better, then do it. But despite years of asking,
you still have not come up with any credible explanation.


It is the same as the one in Price FAQ, or in  Tipler’s paper,
and it is coherent with Deutsch-Hayden one, if recatsed in a
many histories approach.


And I have, on many occasions, shown that these approaches are not
successful in eliminating the non-locality. Price and Tipler,
indeed, just reproduce the standard non-local quantum account. If
you are so convinced that these papers give a fully local
explanation for the violation of the Bell inequalities, then
reproduce the argument here so that we can agree on what, exactly,
we are talking about.

Bruce




EPR and Many Worlds has been "worked out" many rimes before, but 
hasn't really changed the world.


http://settheory.net/many-worlds

The idea is to dismiss the reality of the collapse, consider that the 
deterministic evolution without collapse is all what happens, and 
admit a persisting coexistence of all possibilities in parallel 
worlds, in each of which things would only "look as if" the collapse 
happened.


*The Many-worlds interpretation of the EPR paradox*

Imagine a pair of entangled particles, that will be simultaneously 
measured, each in a specific way, by Alice and Bob, such that for 
each, the probability is 1/2 to find heads or tails, but globally 
there is only 10% probability that they get the same result.


So, Alice seeing her measurement result evolves into a superposition 
(or split) between 2 mental states : Alice-head and Alice-tail, with 
the same weight of 1/2 each.


In the same way, Bob evolves into a superposition (or splits) into 2 
copies : Bob-head and Bob-tail, each with weight 1/2.


"Evolves into" is just MWI-speak for wf collapse into separate worlds.  
This doesn't solve the problem of why Alice and Bob's worlds are correlated.



Then, Alice and Bob meet again.

Alice-head sees Bob in a superposition of states, composed of 10% of 
Bob-head and 90% of Bob-tail,
Alice-tail sees Bob in its remaining states, that is a combination of 
90% of Bob-head with 10% of Bob-tail.
Bob-head sees Alice as in a superposition of states, composed of 10% 
of Alice-head and 90% of Alice-tail
Bob-tail sees Alice in a combination of 90% of Alice-head with 10% of 
Alice-tail.


But that's the problem.  How do they come to have these combinations 
instead of 50/50.  If you suppose it's something about the wf, then it's 
non-local because the wf is non-local.  If you suppose it's something 
that happens because of the interaction between the "worlds" then that 
something was determined non-locally in the setup using correlated 
particles.


Brent



Then, Alice tells Bob her measurement result.
For her this changes essentially nothing :
When Alice-head says "head" she sees Bob as deterministically evolving 
from the mixture (10% of Bob-head + 90% of Bob-tail), into the mixture 
(10% of Bob-head-head + 90% of Bob-tail-head) ; and similarly for 
Alice-tail who says "Tail".


But bob's experience here is a bit different :
Bob-head sees Alice's state collapsing from the undetermined state of 
(10% Alice-head + 90% Alice-tail), into either Alice-head (with 10% 
probability) or Alice-tail (with 90% probability); this splits himself 
between Bob-head-head and Bob-head-tail with these probabilities.
Meanwhile, Bob-tail sees Alice's state collapsing from the 
undetermined

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.



On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 2:55:26 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/6/2019 2:37 AM, smitra wrote: 
> > On 04-10-2019 09:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: 
> >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:03 PM smitra > 
> wrote: 
> >> 
> >>> The descendant worlds get the same energy if they have well defined 
> >>> energy in which case computing the weighted average to get to the 
> >>> expectation value is unnecessary. In general the expectation value 
> >>> will 
> >>> need to be computed by this weighted average. To see that this is 
> >>> not 
> >>> crazy, suppose that QM is not the ultimate answer that 't Hooft is 
> >>> correct. But it then turns out that 't Hooft's deterministic models 
> >>> lead 
> >>> to a multiverse via the back door due to Poincare recurrence. And 
> >>> because with finite information in our brains, we cannot locate 
> >>> ourselves in a particular time period. Then when we do an 
> >>> experiment, a 
> >>> splitting can occur in the sense that we now get more precisely 
> >>> located 
> >>> across in the different sectors separated by astronomical large 
> >>> amounts 
> >>> of time. So, no problem here with the sum of the energy of 
> >>> (effective) 
> >>> branches increasing. 
> >> 
> >> Where is all this in the Schrodinger equation? 
> > 
> > We should start with listing all possibilities: 
> > 
> > 1) Schrodinger equation is exactly correct, in which case we have to 
> > accept the MWI. 
> > 
> > 2) Schrodinger equation is only an approximation. 
> > 
> > Under option 2) we can have single world theories where a real 
> > collapse happens that violates the Schrodinger equation. But it's also 
> > possible that the violation of the Schrodinger equation leading to a 
> > collapse doesn't actually get rid of the Many Worlds part of the MWI. 
> > The way the collapse happens will be different for the copies of an 
> > observer that will exist in a large enough universe (in a spatial or 
> > temporal sense). 
>
> Just as the SE predicts there is no collapse of the WF it also predicts 
> there are no orthogonal worlds.  The appearance of collapse comes from 
> the approximate orthogonality of projections onto the preferred bases.  
> So suppose we just say that when this approximate orthogonality comes 
> close enough to exact, we discard the other subspaces orthogonal to what 
> we've observed.  Those other subspaces effectively don't exist.  The 
> level of "close enough to exact" may have a theoretical basis in the 
> holographic principle and the finite information content available to 
> the accessible universe. 
>
> Brent 
>
>
How does the *Schrödinger equation* predict "no collapse"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation



@philipthrift 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/30ed7f5c-35e8-4162-b818-05a206aa3708%40googlegroups.com.

Re: How Many Universes Are There?



On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 6:14:22 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 3 Oct 2019, at 12:12, Alan Grayson > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 3:39:26 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1 Oct 2019, at 20:29, John Clark  wrote:
>>
>> How Many Universes Are There? 
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> 0.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>
> *You've turned Tegmark upside down, *
>
>
> That looks intersting, but I don’t know. Maybe you can elaborate. I 
> published my material well before Tegmark, and start from a very different 
> problem (the mind-body problem). 
> When Tegmark send me his Mathematical Hypothesis paper, I suggest him to 
> use the Mechanist hypothesis explicitly to clarify possible ambiguities. 
> What is common is the Mathematicalism, but Tegmark still miss the 
> psychologicalism, or the theologicalism needed to get physics from 
> arithmetic (and arithmetical self-reference).
>

>From what I've read from secondary sources, Tegmark believes that every 
mathematical equation has ontological status wrt SOME universe. So 
according to this pov, there are universes where gravity acts as an inverse 
cube, and all higher powers of inverse radius. You, OTOH, seem to affirm 
the view that there is only one "physical" universe, having no ontological 
status -- like the Matrix in the movie with that name. But quite aside from 
the ambiguity of what "ontological status" means, I don't see how you can 
deny those multitudes of other universes which surely seem "computable". AG 

>
>
>
> *on his head. But the same core fallacy remains. AG *
>
>
> Which one?
>

*The idea that "computable" implies ontological status, or even a perfect 
simulation of one, such as in the movie The Matrix. AG*

>
> I say 0 universe since my birth, not because it would be incompatible with 
> Mechanism (which it is), but because I have never seen any evidence for an 
> ontologically real universe.
>

What evidence could possibly exist as "evidence" for an ontologically real 
evidence? And if Mechanism just means the brain and nervous system can be 
replaced with computer chips, I don't see any connection between this 
hypothesis and the whether the externally appearing universe is "real". AG

I have no doubt that long and deep histories exists, but this requires only 
> assumption in arithmetic.
>
> Keep in mind that I give a theory (indeed a very simple one: Kxy = x, and 
> Sxyz = xz(yz). All the rest are definitions and theorem (made in that 
> theory).
>
> Well just to be sure, you need some inference rule, so the entire theory 
> is:
>
> RULES
>
> 1) If x = y and x = z, then y = z
> 2) If x = y then xz = yz
> 3) If x = y then zx = zy
>
> AXIOMS
>
> 4) Kxy = x
> 5) Sxyz = xz(yz)
>
> (See the combinators thread for an explicit proof that this is Turing 
> universal). 
>
> To be sure, I can use much more complicated theory, like the complete 
> first order predicate calculus + the axioms:
>
> 1) 0 ≠ s(x)
> 2) x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y)
> 3) x ≠ 0 -> Ey(x = s(y)) 
> 4) x+0 = x
> 5) x+s(y) = s(x+y)
> 6) x*0=0
> 7) x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
>
> … which as the same time is the one taught informally in high school.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2d2PjP2Gna-4Ocksxjq4G2oRAjRrDEL6gmjn-Lc1xtpA%40mail.gmail.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>>
>>
> -- 
> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d9166511-2575-40ab-bc65-7f0b4d82db1a%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9988bdc5-4a3d-4573-9cbf-df1a51d9c4fb%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Inflation



On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 4:46:59 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 12:41 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
> *> It's the "ironed out" that I don't understand. If there were some 
>> fluctuations, small deviations from thermal equilibrium, why would a sudden 
>> expansion attenuate them? *
>
>
> As I explained in my previous post, Inflation Theory says a very very very 
> small part of the pre-inflationary universe would have had time to reach 
> thermal equilibrium, and that small part then underwent exponential 
> expansion and become 10^100 times larger (or maybe "only" 10^78 times 
> larger) in just 10^-35 seconds. And that very very small part is our entire 
> observable universe. And that very very very small part of the Universe is 
> still in thermal equilibrium, or close to it.
>
> *> It makes more sense to me that the universe was already very close to 
>> thermal equilibrium during inflation, *
>
>
> As I also explain in my previous post, there is no theoretical reason to 
> expect the pre-inflationary universe to be anywhere even close to thermal 
> equilibrium, and the less fine tuning of initial conditions that a theory 
> needs to match current observations, that is to say the less often you have 
> to say "that's just the way it is", the better. 
>

If the pre-inflation universe was a vacuum in the absence of particles, I 
don't think thermal equilibrium applies to it. This is not fine tuning 
AFAICT. OTOH, for the reasons outlined in my last post to LC, the 
parameters such as the SoL, the size of the universe during inflation, and 
the fact that it was causally connected throughout, suggests that thermal 
equilibrium DURING inflation is a possibility which must be considered. AG 

>
> By the way, this thread is quickly becoming unreadable, your post had 12 
> iterations of quotes, that's quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes 
> of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes. 
>

I don't understand the basis for your complaint. This thread is relatively 
short, much shorter than other threads you have been active on, and without 
any complaints as above. AG 

>
> John K Clark
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/21cfb642-e65b-4bba-a591-9789e079783a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-06 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/6/2019 2:37 AM, smitra wrote:

On 04-10-2019 09:10, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:03 PM smitra wrote:

The descendant worlds get the same energy if they have well defined
energy in which case computing the weighted average to get to the
expectation value is unnecessary. In general the expectation value
will
need to be computed by this weighted average. To see that this is
not
crazy, suppose that QM is not the ultimate answer that 't Hooft is
correct. But it then turns out that 't Hooft's deterministic models
lead
to a multiverse via the back door due to Poincare recurrence. And
because with finite information in our brains, we cannot locate
ourselves in a particular time period. Then when we do an
experiment, a
splitting can occur in the sense that we now get more precisely
located
across in the different sectors separated by astronomical large
amounts
of time. So, no problem here with the sum of the energy of
(effective)
branches increasing.

Where is all this in the Schrodinger equation?

We should start with listing all possibilities:

1) Schrodinger equation is exactly correct, in which case we have to
accept the MWI.

2) Schrodinger equation is only an approximation.

Under option 2) we can have single world theories where a real
collapse happens that violates the Schrodinger equation. But it's also
possible that the violation of the Schrodinger equation leading to a
collapse doesn't actually get rid of the Many Worlds part of the MWI.
The way the collapse happens will be different for the copies of an
observer that will exist in a large enough universe (in a spatial or
temporal sense).

Just as the SE predicts there is no collapse of the WF it also predicts
there are no orthogonal worlds. The appearance of collapse comes from
the approximate orthogonality of projections onto the preferred bases.
So suppose we just say that when this approximate orthogonality comes
close enough to exact, we discard the other subspaces orthogonal to what
we've observed. Those other subspaces effectively don't exist. The
level of "close enough to exact" may have a theoretical basis in the
holographic principle and the finite information content available to
the accessible universe.

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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1cf5c5a6-c4e5-818f-ef50-e1adfda1c388%40verizon.net.

Re: Inflation

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 1:27:49 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 11:41:25 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 7:57:59 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> They came to equilibrium, and what thermal fluctuations that deviated 
>>> away from equilibrium were "ironed out" by inflation. 
>>>
>>
>> It's the "ironed out" that I don't understand. If there were some 
>> fluctuations, small deviations from thermal equilibrium, why would a sudden 
>> expansion attenuate them? It makes more sense to me that the universe was 
>> already very close to thermal equilibrium during inflation, and inflation 
>> *preserved* this state. BTW, I am not "belaboring" anything here; 
>> rather, I am trying to resolve, or possibly modify, a key element of the 
>> inflation model. AG
>>
>
> This is why these post with you drive me nuts. It is for the same reason 
> that if waves are stretched out they are made more IR. If clumps are 
> stretched out, think hard speed bump vs a soft one that is spread out, or 
> if curvatures are stretched these occur on a low energy or larger scale.
>
> LC
>

Bruce has a dim view of inflation theory. He says it's a solution seeking a 
problem. He doesn't say, but if it's related to the present large scale 
homogeneity of the observable universe, it raises the issue of whether, 
just before or during inflation, the universe was already in thermal 
equiibrium. It's a reasonable question because, throughout that time, the 
universe was extraordinarily tiny and in causally connected. What's lacking 
in your reply, and possibly in the theory supporting inflation ON THIS 
PARTICULAR ISSUE, is a rigorous definition of thermal equilibrium, and 
whether the time scale of inflation (its duration), the size of the 
universe during that time, and the SoL, whether thermal equilibrium is 
definitely ruled OUT. Maybe it deviated by just one part in 100,000 and 
this is what is measured in the CMBR. If the question drives you nuts, it's 
probably because, to some extent, you share the world-view of the ruling 
elite in ancient Greece who found the questions of Socrates intolerable and 
insisted he drink the hemlock. My method is to test the claims of theories, 
and the more polemic the answers, the less confidence I have in their truth 
value.  That said, I thank you for the plausible information that particles 
became manifest with the decay of the original vacuum. AG

>  
>
>>  
>>
>>> The current state of the universe is such that it emerged from a much 
>>> lower state of entropy than what we would otherwise think. This state of 
>>> low entropy was available to a causal region that inflated out, and what 
>>> fluctuations existed were stretched out and reduced in relative magnitude.
>>>
>>> I fail to see why so many people have trouble with this. It is not a 
>>> final answer, for that will require not only quantum gravitation, but a 
>>> theory of quantum gravitation that is worked into a fair measure of 
>>> maturity. However, inflation does push the barrier of ignorance back a fair 
>>> degree.
>>>
>>> LC
>>>  
>>>

>
>>  
>>>

> That was what was set up with inflation. The whole process of the 
> early expanding universe is about there being episodes of approximate 
> thermal equilibrium of particles, such as during the quark-gluon 
> plasma 
> phase, electroweak period, the QED equilibrium of electrons and 
> photon or 
> the plasma phase that ended by producing the CMB. 
>
> To think about physics one has to do a sort of Buddhist middle 
> way. It is not good to either be too liberal or given to extreme 
> speculations, but it is also not good to be overly conservative. 
>
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6786f308-9bf9-4416-bfc5-b50e02c8db69%40googlegroups.com.

Comparison of quantum programming platforms


Overview and Comparison of Gate Level Quantum Software Platforms Ryan 
LaRose March 22, 2019 https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.02500 


At the end, comparison of teleportation programming on 4 platforms.

@philipthrift

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e642566c-5cc3-4de7-ad18-57012b8c0d2e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is



On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 1:38:37 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/6/2019 1:53 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> That is, as they say, it. Notice you don’t see anything about worlds in 
> there. The worlds are there whether you like it or not, sitting in Hilbert 
> space, waiting to see whether *they become actualized in the course of 
> the evolution.* 
>
>
> What does that mean?  Which ones are not actuallized?  What the theory 
> predicts is not worlds; it predicts there are approximately orthogonal 
> subspaces on which the universal wave function vector has projections.
>
> Brent
>
> Notice, also, that these postulates are eminently testable — indeed, even 
> falsifiable! And once you make them (and you accept an appropriate “past 
> hypothesis,” just as in statistical mechanics, and are considering a 
> sufficiently richly-interacting system), the worlds happen automatically 
> 
> .
>
>
>
Sean Carroll, with his book, and book tour, is the celebrated guru on many 
worlds. What he says must be taken as many worlds gospel.

As he says:

  the worlds happen automatically 

.

@philipthrift 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/afae3279-809d-4521-b09c-432d9366ff41%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-06 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 10/6/2019 1:53 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:


That is, as they say, it. Notice you don’t see anything about worlds 
in there. The worlds are there whether you like it or not, sitting in 
Hilbert space, waiting to see whether /*they become actualized in the 
course of the evolution.*/




What does that mean?  Which ones are not actuallized?  What the theory 
predicts is not worlds; it predicts there are approximately orthogonal 
subspaces on which the universal wave function vector has projections.


Brent

Notice, also, that these postulates are eminently testable — indeed, 
even falsifiable! And once you make them (and you accept an 
appropriate “past hypothesis,” just as in statistical mechanics, and 
are considering a sufficiently richly-interacting system), the worlds 
happen automatically 
.





--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4f968673-854c-c927-3e1f-74e6e2e2492b%40verizon.net.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is



On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 12:43:05 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/6/2019 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> >> On 6 Oct 2019, at 02:50, Russell Standish  > wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 09:05:49PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: 
> >>> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 7:15 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>> On 5 Oct 2019, at 07:14, Bruce Kellett  > wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 1:10 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>> According to the above non-separable wave function, that means 
> that Bob 
> >>> gets only the ket |->, 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> That is vague. It means that Alice will access to the Bobs who get 
> that 
> >>> state, and never access to the Bobs who did not got it. 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Exactly. And this is what you are required to explain. Just stating it 
> as a 
> >>> fact is not an explanation. 
> >> ISTM that this follows from the Born rule - the probability of both 
> >> Alice and Bob seeing the same spin is strictly zero. 
> >> 
> >> I understand that there are problems in deriving the Born rule from 
> >> the MWI, and that derivations that purport to do so (such as mine) are 
> >> contentious (to put it politely :)). So it doesn't exactly solve the 
> >> problem, but maybe directs us toward where the solution lies. 
> >> 
> >> What I do get is Bruno's point that a single world assumption turns a 
> >> nonlocal state into FTL "influence", the mechanism of which is quite 
> >> unimaginable as you point out. An argument by incredulity, as it were, 
> >> for the MWI. 
>
> ISTM the same FTL "influence" is needed to split the world into two.  I 
> originally thought of the EPR as a split into two worlds starting from 
> Alice's measurement and another split into two worlds starting from 
> Bob's measurement and where these four worlds overlap in the future they 
> interact so as to produce the Bell inequalities in the future overlap.  
> But then I realized that whatever it is about the four worlds that 
> causes them to interact in this way must have originated at the 
> measurement events, otherwise future interactions will not be local 
> anyway. 
>
> Brent 
>
> >
>


The multiple people describing the operation of worlds in the MWI is like 
*Rashomon*.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon

@philipthrift

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b3ad1026-3447-447d-999c-b50615ce1e7f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-06 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/6/2019 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 6 Oct 2019, at 02:50, Russell Standish wrote:

On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 09:05:49PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 7:15 PM Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 5 Oct 2019, at 07:14, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 1:10 AM Bruno Marchal wrote:

According to the above non-separable wave function, that means that Bob
gets only the ket |->,

That is vague. It means that Alice will access to the Bobs who get that
state, and never access to the Bobs who did not got it.

Exactly. And this is what you are required to explain. Just stating it as a
fact is not an explanation.

ISTM that this follows from the Born rule - the probability of both
Alice and Bob seeing the same spin is strictly zero.

I understand that there are problems in deriving the Born rule from
the MWI, and that derivations that purport to do so (such as mine) are
contentious (to put it politely :)). So it doesn't exactly solve the
problem, but maybe directs us toward where the solution lies.

What I do get is Bruno's point that a single world assumption turns a
nonlocal state into FTL "influence", the mechanism of which is quite
unimaginable as you point out. An argument by incredulity, as it were,
for the MWI.

ISTM the same FTL "influence" is needed to split the world into two. I
originally thought of the EPR as a split into two worlds starting from
Alice's measurement and another split into two worlds starting from
Bob's measurement and where these four worlds overlap in the future they
interact so as to produce the Bell inequalities in the future overlap.
But then I realized that whatever it is about the four worlds that
causes them to interact in this way must have originated at the
measurement events, otherwise future interactions will not be local anyway.

Brent

Exactly.

Bruno

Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/08724bd9-ba61-038b-39d0-4ab1d751373d%40verizon.net.

Re: Observation versus assumption

2019-10-06 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

So only "real scientists" comprise the NAS and nobody among that august body 
ever makes a mistake, or is off-base? How's tha Hockey Stick doing, and I am 
sure glad MIT  physicists didn't pimp the Soviet's line back in the 80's about 
Nuclear Winter!How's that fusion reactor doing? Powering your home? Look, Bruno 
has a place at the table, in that he's an academic. Like young, Standish does 
in Aus. 


-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Oct 6, 2019 5:58 am
Subject: Re: Observation versus assumption

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 4:05 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:


> Those who critics my work are not member of the National Academy of Sciences. 
> They are not scientist. 
 And those who praise your work are not members of the National Academy of 
Sciences either, real scientists ignore your work because your work is so bad 
it's not even wrong.
  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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3Du_rws_H4Ak2Rcn9mrqsGpQchV3%3D4YNDotdUCKGiVzQ%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1406042138.4418335.1570383486283%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-06 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List





On 10/6/2019 1:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
When Alice and Bob are separated, and measure their particles state, 
the MWI only ask that whatever they found will be correlated. In the 
world where Alice finds “up", Bob will find "down", and in the world 
where Alice finds “down”Bob will find “up”. But without any FTL action 
at a distance.


But being a world is a non-local variable.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/828915a8-e73f-5d88-25a0-d4905bb2ff83%40verizon.net.

Re: Wave structure of matter

2019-10-06 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 1:39:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 5 Oct 2019, at 15:47, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 4:26:44 AM UTC-5, Samiya wrote:
>>
>> Interesting! 
>> Consider the ayaat quoted in this slide: 
>
>
> I suppose next you will say the Koran has a hidden solution to Riemann's 
> conjecture on the ζ-function. I have met or known Christian who have said 
> such things about the Bible; all that can be known is in scripture. 
>
> Scriptures work because people can twist them around to say almost 
> anything. That is how these things work and why they persist. This only 
> talks about lightning in a way not different from ideas of Thor throwing 
> thunderbolts. It say nothing of real significance.
>
>
>
> There has been study showing why people extract sense from pure 
> randomness, and even more from any text, when they are motivated to see 
> them there.
>
> Now I use often the bible to shake a bit the witness of Jehovah, when 
> asking them if PI is equal to 3, as said implicitly in the Bible. Some say 
> “yes”, showing the “authority argument” implicit in such reading.
>
> Of course the theology of the greeks was dissociated rather clearly from 
> all myth and legend. Only reasoning was accepted, even if motivated by 
> personal feeling or experience.
>
> Religion is in no text, and concerned the non nameable things, from Cantor 
> collection of all sets, to natural numbers, which cannot be defined 
> (provably so with Mechanism, but also true intuitively when you think about 
> it.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
The brain is a sort of puzzle solving system. We have a compulsion to make 
sense out of things. We see this with gambling, where people will persist 
in playing games that have odds weighed in favor of the house. People will 
drain away their entire savings by running to a casino. Religion is 
something similar, where believers will spend a lifetime working to make 
some consistent sense out of a jumble of mythic narratives.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/06107aa2-a8c5-4f36-9609-d4e848b77c65%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Inflation

2019-10-06 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 5:46:59 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 12:41 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
> *> It's the "ironed out" that I don't understand. If there were some 
>> fluctuations, small deviations from thermal equilibrium, why would a sudden 
>> expansion attenuate them? *
>
>
> As I explained in my previous post, Inflation Theory says a very very very 
> small part of the pre-inflationary universe would have had time to reach 
> thermal equilibrium, and that small part then underwent exponential 
> expansion and become 10^100 times larger (or maybe "only" 10^78 times 
> larger) in just 10^-35 seconds. And that very very small part is our entire 
> observable universe. And that very very very small part of the Universe is 
> still in thermal equilibrium, or close to it.
>
> *> It makes more sense to me that the universe was already very close to 
>> thermal equilibrium during inflation, *
>
>
> As I also explain in my previous post, there is no theoretical reason to 
> expect the pre-inflationary universe to be anywhere even close to thermal 
> equilibrium, and the less fine tuning of initial conditions that a theory 
> needs to match current observations, that is to say the less often you have 
> to say "that's just the way it is", the better. 
>
> By the way, this thread is quickly becoming unreadable, your post had 12 
> iterations of quotes, that's quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes 
> of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes. 
>
> John K Clark
>

Based on the theory of quantum fields and thermodynamics in curved 
spacetime there is every reason to think the system was not in equilibrium. 
Also the initial state of the universe was very clearly extremely low 
entropic and so likely not in equilibrium.

As these posts grow in numbers of responses I generally drop them. They 
become difficult to follow and after they reach 100 the list is partitioned 
in ways that make it even harder. 

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4a952ede-bf58-4098-96bb-db413f19ada4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is



On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 7:01:33 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 10:33 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 6:03:29 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> And I have, on many occasions, shown that these approaches are not 
>>> successful in eliminating the non-locality. Price and Tipler, indeed, just 
>>> reproduce the standard non-local quantum account. If you are so convinced 
>>> that these papers give a fully local explanation for the violation of the 
>>> Bell inequalities, then reproduce the argument here so that we can agree on 
>>> what, exactly, we are talking about.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> EPR and Many Worlds has been "worked out" many rimes before, but hasn't 
>> really changed the world.
>>
>> http://settheory.net/many-worlds
>>
>> The idea is to dismiss the reality of the collapse, consider that the 
>> deterministic evolution without collapse is all what happens, and admit a 
>> persisting coexistence of all possibilities in parallel worlds, in each of 
>> which things would only "look as if" the collapse happened.
>>
>> *The Many-worlds interpretation of the EPR paradox*
>>
>> Imagine a pair of entangled particles, that will be simultaneously 
>> measured, each in a specific way, by Alice and Bob, such that for each, the 
>> probability is 1/2 to find heads or tails, but globally there is only 10% 
>> probability that they get the same result.
>>
>> So, Alice seeing her measurement result evolves into a superposition (or 
>> split) between 2 mental states : Alice-head and Alice-tail, with the same 
>> weight of 1/2 each.
>>
>> In the same way, Bob evolves into a superposition (or splits) into 2 
>> copies : Bob-head and Bob-tail, each with weight 1/2.
>> Then, Alice and Bob meet again.
>>
>> Alice-head sees Bob in a superposition of states, composed of 10% of 
>> Bob-head and 90% of Bob-tail,
>> Alice-tail sees Bob in its remaining states, that is a combination of 90% 
>> of Bob-head with 10% of Bob-tail.
>>
>
> All very well, but what is the mechanism for this to happen -- what is the 
> joint wave function when they meet that has these weights for the relevant 
> branches? How does unitary evolution from the initial state lead to this 
> particular wave function with these probabilities? And what determines the 
> probabilities?
>
> There is no actual causal explanation here.
>  
>
>> Bob-head sees Alice as in a superposition of states, composed of 10% of 
>> Alice-head and 90% of Alice-tail
>> Bob-tail sees Alice in a combination of 90% of Alice-head with 10% of 
>> Alice-tail.
>>
>> Then, Alice tells Bob her measurement result.
>> For her this changes essentially nothing :
>> When Alice-head says "head" she sees Bob as deterministically evolving 
>> from the mixture (10% of Bob-head + 90% of Bob-tail), into the mixture (10% 
>> of Bob-head-head + 90% of Bob-tail-head) ; and similarly for Alice-tail who 
>> says "Tail".
>>
>
> Interesting. What is the interaction that occurs when Alice says "head" 
> that causes Bob to deterministically evolve in this way?
>  
>
>> But bob's experience here is a bit different :
>> Bob-head sees Alice's state collapsing from the undetermined state of 
>> (10% Alice-head + 90% Alice-tail), into either Alice-head (with 10% 
>> probability) or Alice-tail (with 90% probability); this splits himself 
>> between Bob-head-head and Bob-head-tail with these probabilities.
>>
>
> So there is a collapse after all?
>  
>
>> Meanwhile, Bob-tail sees Alice's state collapsing from the undetermined 
>> state of (90% Alice-head + 10% Alice-tail) as he saw her, into either 
>> Alice-head (with 90% probability) or Alice-tail (with 10% probability).
>>
>
> There is no dynamics for this in the Schrodinger equation. Since there is 
> no interaction at the intersection of the forward light cones (it is not 
> necessary for Alice and Bob to actually meet; we could have a third party 
> collect the data), the probabilities for the four possible worlds have to 
> have been set while Alice and Bob were still at space-like separations -- 
> in other words, at the time of their individual measurements. Or else there 
> is no explanation for the 10% and 90% probabilities mentioned in this 
> account.
>
> Bruce
>


This (I looked up) came from this dude's site:

http://spoirier.lautre.net/en/

Happy reading.


How does Sean cover EPR in his book?


Everyone has a story to tell.

@philipthrift

 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6001096e-4548-45bb-a19a-4c94a357dcbf%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 10:33 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

> On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 6:03:29 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>>
>> And I have, on many occasions, shown that these approaches are not
>> successful in eliminating the non-locality. Price and Tipler, indeed, just
>> reproduce the standard non-local quantum account. If you are so convinced
>> that these papers give a fully local explanation for the violation of the
>> Bell inequalities, then reproduce the argument here so that we can agree on
>> what, exactly, we are talking about.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> EPR and Many Worlds has been "worked out" many rimes before, but hasn't
> really changed the world.
>
> http://settheory.net/many-worlds
>
> The idea is to dismiss the reality of the collapse, consider that the
> deterministic evolution without collapse is all what happens, and admit a
> persisting coexistence of all possibilities in parallel worlds, in each of
> which things would only "look as if" the collapse happened.
>
> *The Many-worlds interpretation of the EPR paradox*
>
> Imagine a pair of entangled particles, that will be simultaneously
> measured, each in a specific way, by Alice and Bob, such that for each, the
> probability is 1/2 to find heads or tails, but globally there is only 10%
> probability that they get the same result.
>
> So, Alice seeing her measurement result evolves into a superposition (or
> split) between 2 mental states : Alice-head and Alice-tail, with the same
> weight of 1/2 each.
>
> In the same way, Bob evolves into a superposition (or splits) into 2
> copies : Bob-head and Bob-tail, each with weight 1/2.
> Then, Alice and Bob meet again.
>
> Alice-head sees Bob in a superposition of states, composed of 10% of
> Bob-head and 90% of Bob-tail,
> Alice-tail sees Bob in its remaining states, that is a combination of 90%
> of Bob-head with 10% of Bob-tail.
>

All very well, but what is the mechanism for this to happen -- what is the
joint wave function when they meet that has these weights for the relevant
branches? How does unitary evolution from the initial state lead to this
particular wave function with these probabilities? And what determines the
probabilities?

There is no actual causal explanation here.


> Bob-head sees Alice as in a superposition of states, composed of 10% of
> Alice-head and 90% of Alice-tail
> Bob-tail sees Alice in a combination of 90% of Alice-head with 10% of
> Alice-tail.
>
> Then, Alice tells Bob her measurement result.
> For her this changes essentially nothing :
> When Alice-head says "head" she sees Bob as deterministically evolving
> from the mixture (10% of Bob-head + 90% of Bob-tail), into the mixture (10%
> of Bob-head-head + 90% of Bob-tail-head) ; and similarly for Alice-tail who
> says "Tail".
>

Interesting. What is the interaction that occurs when Alice says "head"
that causes Bob to deterministically evolve in this way?


> But bob's experience here is a bit different :
> Bob-head sees Alice's state collapsing from the undetermined state of (10%
> Alice-head + 90% Alice-tail), into either Alice-head (with 10% probability)
> or Alice-tail (with 90% probability); this splits himself between
> Bob-head-head and Bob-head-tail with these probabilities.
>

So there is a collapse after all?


> Meanwhile, Bob-tail sees Alice's state collapsing from the undetermined
> state of (90% Alice-head + 10% Alice-tail) as he saw her, into either
> Alice-head (with 90% probability) or Alice-tail (with 10% probability).
>

There is no dynamics for this in the Schrodinger equation. Since there is
no interaction at the intersection of the forward light cones (it is not
necessary for Alice and Bob to actually meet; we could have a third party
collect the data), the probabilities for the four possible worlds have to
have been set while Alice and Bob were still at space-like separations --
in other words, at the time of their individual measurements. Or else there
is no explanation for the 10% and 90% probabilities mentioned in this
account.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRnGY2SfAjuxY6g%3DUbLxHG-EnWaJqixRf8C-Jx%3DE%2Bt7WQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 6:03:29 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:23 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>
>> When Alice and Bob are separated, and measure their particles state, the 
>> MWI only ask that whatever they found will be correlated. In the world 
>> where Alice finds “up", Bob will find "down", and in the world where Alice 
>> finds “down”Bob will find “up”. But without any FTL action at a distance.
>>
>>
> OK. So what is the explanation for this aspect of MWI? I am asking for a 
> local causal physical explanation for the observed facts. Nothing else will 
> suffice at this point.
>
>
> Aspect took a long amount of work to ensure that light has not the time to 
>> bring the correlation, and as the choice of “Alice”’s direction of spin 
>> measurement is arbitrary, unless you bring t’Hooft super determinism, the 
>> influence has to be FTL. Not so in the MWI.
>>
>
> The influence is non-local, that does not imply FTL. If there is no 
> non-local influence in MWI, how is the observed correlation formed? Just 
> answer the question.
>
>
> Well, I have looked at  your "explanations", and at a lot of other MWI 
>> so-called explanations, and not one of them has been satisfactory. These 
>> "explanations" are either hopelessly vague, or they misunderstand what is 
>> required, or, like Wallace, they simply wimp out of any explanation at all. 
>> If you can do better, then do it. But despite years of asking, you still 
>> have not come up with any credible explanation.
>>
>>
>> It is the same as the one in Price FAQ, or in  Tipler’s paper, and it is 
>> coherent with Deutsch-Hayden one, if recatsed in a many histories approach.
>>
>
> And I have, on many occasions, shown that these approaches are not 
> successful in eliminating the non-locality. Price and Tipler, indeed, just 
> reproduce the standard non-local quantum account. If you are so convinced 
> that these papers give a fully local explanation for the violation of the 
> Bell inequalities, then reproduce the argument here so that we can agree on 
> what, exactly, we are talking about.
>
> Bruce
>

EPR and Many Worlds has been "worked out" many rimes before, but hasn't 
really changed the world.

http://settheory.net/many-worlds

The idea is to dismiss the reality of the collapse, consider that the 
deterministic evolution without collapse is all what happens, and admit a 
persisting coexistence of all possibilities in parallel worlds, in each of 
which things would only "look as if" the collapse happened.

*The Many-worlds interpretation of the EPR paradox*

Imagine a pair of entangled particles, that will be simultaneously 
measured, each in a specific way, by Alice and Bob, such that for each, the 
probability is 1/2 to find heads or tails, but globally there is only 10% 
probability that they get the same result.

So, Alice seeing her measurement result evolves into a superposition (or 
split) between 2 mental states : Alice-head and Alice-tail, with the same 
weight of 1/2 each.

In the same way, Bob evolves into a superposition (or splits) into 2 copies 
: Bob-head and Bob-tail, each with weight 1/2.
Then, Alice and Bob meet again.

Alice-head sees Bob in a superposition of states, composed of 10% of 
Bob-head and 90% of Bob-tail,
Alice-tail sees Bob in its remaining states, that is a combination of 90% 
of Bob-head with 10% of Bob-tail.
Bob-head sees Alice as in a superposition of states, composed of 10% of 
Alice-head and 90% of Alice-tail
Bob-tail sees Alice in a combination of 90% of Alice-head with 10% of 
Alice-tail.

Then, Alice tells Bob her measurement result.
For her this changes essentially nothing :
When Alice-head says "head" she sees Bob as deterministically evolving from 
the mixture (10% of Bob-head + 90% of Bob-tail), into the mixture (10% of 
Bob-head-head + 90% of Bob-tail-head) ; and similarly for Alice-tail who 
says "Tail".

But bob's experience here is a bit different :
Bob-head sees Alice's state collapsing from the undetermined state of (10% 
Alice-head + 90% Alice-tail), into either Alice-head (with 10% probability) 
or Alice-tail (with 90% probability); this splits himself between 
Bob-head-head and Bob-head-tail with these probabilities.
Meanwhile, Bob-tail sees Alice's state collapsing from the undetermined 
state of (90% Alice-head + 10% Alice-tail) as he saw her, into either 
Alice-head (with 90% probability) or Alice-tail (with 10% probability).

and 

*Many Worlds Model resolving the Einstein Podolsky Rosen*
*paradox via a Direct Realism to Modal Realism Transition that*
*preserves Einstein Locality *
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.1674.pdf

And the "reverse" of many worlds (sum-over-histories):

https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/personal/rsorkin/some.papers/63.eprb.pdf

@philipthrift

-- 
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

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:23 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> When Alice and Bob are separated, and measure their particles state, the
> MWI only ask that whatever they found will be correlated. In the world
> where Alice finds “up", Bob will find "down", and in the world where Alice
> finds “down”Bob will find “up”. But without any FTL action at a distance.
>
>
OK. So what is the explanation for this aspect of MWI? I am asking for a
local causal physical explanation for the observed facts. Nothing else will
suffice at this point.


Aspect took a long amount of work to ensure that light has not the time to
> bring the correlation, and as the choice of “Alice”’s direction of spin
> measurement is arbitrary, unless you bring t’Hooft super determinism, the
> influence has to be FTL. Not so in the MWI.
>

The influence is non-local, that does not imply FTL. If there is no
non-local influence in MWI, how is the observed correlation formed? Just
answer the question.


Well, I have looked at  your "explanations", and at a lot of other MWI
> so-called explanations, and not one of them has been satisfactory. These
> "explanations" are either hopelessly vague, or they misunderstand what is
> required, or, like Wallace, they simply wimp out of any explanation at all.
> If you can do better, then do it. But despite years of asking, you still
> have not come up with any credible explanation.
>
>
> It is the same as the one in Price FAQ, or in  Tipler’s paper, and it is
> coherent with Deutsch-Hayden one, if recatsed in a many histories approach.
>

And I have, on many occasions, shown that these approaches are not
successful in eliminating the non-locality. Price and Tipler, indeed, just
reproduce the standard non-local quantum account. If you are so convinced
that these papers give a fully local explanation for the violation of the
Bell inequalities, then reproduce the argument here so that we can agree on
what, exactly, we are talking about.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRgnvvO9PZGuq8ZR9SLPEmyJ4FuehDK7zch7k0bzhf3Mg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:23 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 5 Oct 2019, at 13:05, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
> Let us start again. Consider the entangled singlet state that we have been
>> talking about:
>>
>> |psi> = (|+>|-> - |->|+>)/sqrt(2).
>>
>> This refers to two spacetime locations;
>>
>>
>> You can’t at the start impose your own interpretation. You know that I
>> disagree with this interpretation since the start.
>>
>
> For goodness sake, Bruno, what are you talking about? You cannot 'disagree
> with this interpretation'. That is what the singlet state when the
> particles have separated means.
>
>
> Meaning = interpretation. There is no consensus how to interpret the wave,
> even among “many-worlders”. Nothing is obvious here.
>

I think that everyone (except you, perhaps), agrees that this equation for
the entangled singlet state refers to two particles that might have
arbitrary space-time separation. This might not be obvious to you, but it
is to everyone else.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRX4X7NFOkhLvJaEyY8VLHY90m0cc_P8G9z2de1iSYyfA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Inflation

2019-10-06 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 12:41 PM Alan Grayson wrote:

*> It's the "ironed out" that I don't understand. If there were some
> fluctuations, small deviations from thermal equilibrium, why would a sudden
> expansion attenuate them? *

As I explained in my previous post, Inflation Theory says a very very very
small part of the pre-inflationary universe would have had time to reach
thermal equilibrium, and that small part then underwent exponential
expansion and become 10^100 times larger (or maybe "only" 10^78 times
larger) in just 10^-35 seconds. And that very very small part is our entire
observable universe. And that very very very small part of the Universe is
still in thermal equilibrium, or close to it.

*> It makes more sense to me that the universe was already very close to
> thermal equilibrium during inflation, *

As I also explain in my previous post, there is no theoretical reason to
expect the pre-inflationary universe to be anywhere even close to thermal
equilibrium, and the less fine tuning of initial conditions that a theory
needs to match current observations, that is to say the less often you have
to say "that's just the way it is", the better.

By the way, this thread is quickly becoming unreadable, your post had 12
iterations of quotes, that's quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes
of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes.

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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2rkpZmRc_kcZ_K-Dn414g7dC-tO0RxsF1hpOfe0KgD2w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 8:37 PM smitra  wrote:

> On 04-10-2019 09:10, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:03 PM smitra  wrote:
> >
> >> The descendant worlds get the same energy if they have well defined
> >> energy in which case computing the weighted average to get to the
> >> expectation value is unnecessary. In general the expectation value
> >> will
> >> need to be computed by this weighted average. To see that this is
> >> not
> >> crazy, suppose that QM is not the ultimate answer that 't Hooft is
> >> correct. But it then turns out that 't Hooft's deterministic models
> >> lead
> >> to a multiverse via the back door due to Poincare recurrence. And
> >> because with finite information in our brains, we cannot locate
> >> ourselves in a particular time period. Then when we do an
> >> experiment, a
> >> splitting can occur in the sense that we now get more precisely
> >> located
> >> across in the different sectors separated by astronomical large
> >> amounts
> >> of time. So, no problem here with the sum of the energy of
> >> (effective)
> >> branches increasing.
> >
> > Where is all this in the Schrodinger equation?
>
> We should start with listing all possibilities:
>
> 1) Schrodinger equation is exactly correct, in which case we have to
> accept the MWI.
>

False.


> 2) Schrodinger equation is only an approximation.
>

Possible, but irrelevant here. This does not go towards answering the
question that was asked about energy.

Bruce


Under option 2) we can have single world theories where a real collapse
> happens that violates the Schrodinger equation. But it's also possible
> that the violation of the Schrodinger equation leading to a collapse
> doesn't actually get rid of the Many Worlds part of the MWI. The way the
> collapse happens will be different for the copies of an observer that
> will exist in a large enough universe (in a spatial or temporal sense).
>
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTUzf%3DPsuDh6NQzniD5as_SxDT9OHkATYEZS2EFdDqkNg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Observation versus assumption

2019-10-06 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 4:05 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

*> Those who critics my work are not member of the National Academy of
> Sciences. They are not scientist. *


And those who praise your work are not members of the National Academy of
Sciences either, real scientists ignore your work because your work is so
bad it's not even wrong.

  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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3Du_rws_H4Ak2Rcn9mrqsGpQchV3%3D4YNDotdUCKGiVzQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-06 Thread smitra

On 04-10-2019 09:10, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:03 PM smitra wrote:

Where is all this in the Schrodinger equation?

We should start with listing all possibilities:

1) Schrodinger equation is exactly correct, in which case we have to
accept the MWI.

2) Schrodinger equation is only an approximation.

Under option 2) we can have single world theories where a real collapse
happens that violates the Schrodinger equation. But it's also possible
that the violation of the Schrodinger equation leading to a collapse
doesn't actually get rid of the Many Worlds part of the MWI. The way the
collapse happens will be different for the copies of an observer that
will exist in a large enough universe (in a spatial or temporal sense).

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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSygYU0w0FY94y7tMR%3DX5BbDhF_R43jQe8MDu6TKoLQHg%40mail.gmail.com
[1].

Links:
--
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSygYU0w0FY94y7tMR%3DX5BbDhF_R43jQe8MDu6TKoLQHg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 3:25:41 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> > On 6 Oct 2019, at 02:50, Russell Standish  > wrote: 
> > 
> > On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 09:05:49PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: 
> >> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 7:15 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote: 
> >> 
> >>On 5 Oct 2019, at 07:14, Bruce Kellett  > wrote: 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 1:10 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote: 
> >> 
> >>According to the above non-separable wave function, that means 
> that Bob 
> >>gets only the ket |->, 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>That is vague. It means that Alice will access to the Bobs who get 
> that 
> >>state, and never access to the Bobs who did not got it. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Exactly. And this is what you are required to explain. Just stating it 
> as a 
> >> fact is not an explanation. 
> > 
> > ISTM that this follows from the Born rule - the probability of both 
> > Alice and Bob seeing the same spin is strictly zero. 
> > 
> > I understand that there are problems in deriving the Born rule from 
> > the MWI, and that derivations that purport to do so (such as mine) are 
> > contentious (to put it politely :)). So it doesn't exactly solve the 
> > problem, but maybe directs us toward where the solution lies. 
> > 
> > What I do get is Bruno's point that a single world assumption turns a 
> > nonlocal state into FTL "influence", the mechanism of which is quite 
> > unimaginable as you point out. An argument by incredulity, as it were, 
> > for the MWI. 
>
> Exactly. 
>
> Bruno 
>
>

Going back to what Carroll precisely specifies:

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/02/19/the-wrong-objections-to-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics/

Now, MWI certainly does *predict* the existence of a huge number of 
unobservable worlds. But it doesn’t *postulate* them.* It derives them,* 
from what it does postulate. And the actual postulates of the theory are 
quite simple indeed:

   1. The world is described by a quantum state, which is an element of a 
   kind of vector space known as Hilbert space.
   2. 
   3. The quantum state evolves through time in accordance with the 
   Schrödinger equation, with some particular Hamiltonian.

That is, as they say, it. Notice you don’t see anything about worlds in 
there. The worlds are there whether you like it or not, sitting in Hilbert 
space, waiting to see whether they become actualized in the course of the 
evolution. Notice, also, that these postulates are eminently testable — 
indeed, even falsifiable! And once you make them (and you accept an 
appropriate “past hypothesis,” just as in statistical mechanics, and are 
considering a sufficiently richly-interacting system), the worlds happen 
automatically 

.

So that is all there is to it. What is more than just not having one world?

@philipthrift 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4c621065-efc2-4934-97c3-70ea1156544e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:25 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> > On 6 Oct 2019, at 02:50, Russell Standish  wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 09:05:49PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 7:15 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> >>
> >>On 5 Oct 2019, at 07:14, Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 1:10 AM Bruno Marchal 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>According to the above non-separable wave function, that means
> that Bob
> >>gets only the ket |->,
> >>
> >>
> >>That is vague. It means that Alice will access to the Bobs who get
> that
> >>state, and never access to the Bobs who did not got it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Exactly. And this is what you are required to explain. Just stating it
> as a
> >> fact is not an explanation.
> >
> > ISTM that this follows from the Born rule - the probability of both
> > Alice and Bob seeing the same spin is strictly zero.
> >
> > I understand that there are problems in deriving the Born rule from
> > the MWI, and that derivations that purport to do so (such as mine) are
> > contentious (to put it politely :)). So it doesn't exactly solve the
> > problem, but maybe directs us toward where the solution lies.
> >
> > What I do get is Bruno's point that a single world assumption turns a
> > nonlocal state into FTL "influence", the mechanism of which is quite
> > unimaginable as you point out. An argument by incredulity, as it were,
> > for the MWI.
>
> Exactly.
>

It is not an indirect argument for MWI because MWI has not provided an
alternative explanation. We might all reject FTL as implausible. But what
are you proposing to replace it? Magic??

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTZRH-THV_%2B_45yUZJQ%2BR6uv2Khs8ibHfME1x%2BCqksL5A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.



On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 1:19:52 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 5 Oct 2019, at 13:08, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 2:21:34 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4 Oct 2019, at 20:04, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:28:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4 Oct 2019, at 00:53, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The question is about quantum many worlds. Not cosmology.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cosmology assumes the quantum at a cosmological scale, and it is where a 
>>> collapse makes the less sense. Who would observe and be responsible for the 
>>> collapse of the universal wave? Belinfante estimates that the 
>>> Copenhagen-von Neuman formulation of QM requires an external god looking at 
>>> the universe, like materialism requires a god selecting a unique 
>>> computation, but that’s no more doing science.
>>>
>>> François Englert, who worked in quantum cosmology, was very annoyed by 
>>> the collapse problem, and was relieved that it makes sense to just abandon 
>>> the collapse idea.  The collapse is usually not even defined in any 
>>> intelligible sense, and it introduces a duality incompatible with 
>>> Mechanism, but also with the scientific attitude, I would say.
>>>
>>> With mechanism, there is only one consciousness which differentiates 
>>> into many 1p histories, and they interfere statistically, notably by 
>>> allowing a 1p plural observable and sharable reality.
>>>
>>> Why to believe in any “world"? 
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Applied sciences 
>>
>>   
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_applied_science#Branches_of_applied_science
>>
>> do not need Many Worlds Interpretation (as far as I can see).
>>
>> If there is no reason to use MWI in applied science, there is no reason 
>> to consider MWI in science at all.
>>
>>
>> That leads back to instrumentalist metaphysics, which is the same as 
>> “shut up and calculate”. You don’t need any world, not even one, in that 
>> case. 
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>
>
>
> It could appear so, but I say it leads to codicalism (between 
> instrumentalism [strict antirealism] and realism).
>
>
> “Codicalism” or even “formalism” necessitates sigma_1 arithmetical 
> realism, which is the only ontology possible when we assume mechanism, but 
> consciousness and matter become phenomenological, and necessitate in 
> principle the whole of the mathematical reality, which is multiple and 
> undefinable (by machines, provably by machine’s too).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>  

JD Hamkins - https://twitter.com/jdhamkins 
 - has expanded the definition of 
"definable" in mathematics.

Nothing is settled and written on stone tablets, like The Ten Commandments.

@philipthrift

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/df9674d6-9a21-4651-9be7-b340b7d79273%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is



> On 6 Oct 2019, at 02:50, Russell Standish  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 09:05:49PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 7:15 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>> 
>>On 5 Oct 2019, at 07:14, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 1:10 AM Bruno Marchal  
>> wrote:
>> 
>>According to the above non-separable wave function, that means that 
>> Bob
>>gets only the ket |->,
>> 
>> 
>>That is vague. It means that Alice will access to the Bobs who get that
>>state, and never access to the Bobs who did not got it.
>> 
>> 
>> Exactly. And this is what you are required to explain. Just stating it as a
>> fact is not an explanation. 
> 
> ISTM that this follows from the Born rule - the probability of both
> Alice and Bob seeing the same spin is strictly zero.
> 
> I understand that there are problems in deriving the Born rule from
> the MWI, and that derivations that purport to do so (such as mine) are
> contentious (to put it politely :)). So it doesn't exactly solve the
> problem, but maybe directs us toward where the solution lies.
> 
> What I do get is Bruno's point that a single world assumption turns a
> nonlocal state into FTL "influence", the mechanism of which is quite
> unimaginable as you point out. An argument by incredulity, as it were,
> for the MWI.

Exactly.

Bruno


> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/20191006005045.GX14811%40zen.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8B59D88F-44AF-4E90-B51D-D3A459BF26F3%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is


> On 5 Oct 2019, at 13:05, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 7:15 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> On 5 Oct 2019, at 07:14, Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
>> 
>> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 1:10 AM Bruno Marchal > > wrote:
>> On 3 Oct 2019, at 13:31, Bruce Kellett > > wrote:
>>> And there is no FTL action -- that would be a local hidden variable causal 
>>> explanation, and Bell rules that out.
>> 
>> This I do not understand, unless you bring t’Hooft super-determinism. In a 
>> unique universe, the violation of BI requires that when Alice do a 
>> measurement she influences and change the “map of the accessible reality” of 
>> Bob. They still cannot do signalling, but, with or without hidden variables, 
>> Alice does restrict instantaneously the state available Bob. Withe MW, as 
>> long as the light has not entangle Bob, Bob can make a measurement 
>> entangling him so other Alice of the multiverse. Everyone will agree with 
>> what the singlet state predicts, and no FTL signalling, nor influence has to 
>> occur.
>> 
>> You contradict yourself, Bruno. You say "when Alice do a measurement she 
>> influences and changes the 'map of accessible reality' of Bob”.
> 
> Yes, of course, but that influence propagate at a speed slower than light, 
> but successive entanglement “contagion”.
> 
>> Then you say "Everyone will agree...no influence has to occur.”
> 
> You confuse the Bobs to whom Alice can access, to the all Bobs, including 
> those Alice will never been able to access.
> 
> Your twisting does not get you out of the fact that you have contradicted 
> yourself.


You need to be more specific than that. I don’t see the contradiction. I 
contradict only you interpretation of the wave, I think.



>  
>> I think your complete failure to understand the non-local entangled state
> 
> (Semantic play)
> 
> You agreed that you did not understand the non-local entangled state.

The only thing that I do not understand here is the non-locality of the 
entangled state in the One-universe interpretation of QM.




>  
>> -- the fact that the wave function itself is non-local -- is at the root of 
>> all your misunderstandings, and leads you into these contradictory positions.
> 
> No, you are not understanding what I said. Reread the post and the full 
> explanation.
> 
> There is no full explanation in any previous post of yours.

OK. One I have more time, I will re-explain more fully.




>  
>> Let us start again. Consider the entangled singlet state that we have been 
>> talking about:
>>> |psi> = (|+>|-> - |->|+>)/sqrt(2).
>> This refers to two spacetime locations;
> 
> You can’t at the start impose your own interpretation. You know that I 
> disagree with this interpretation since the start.
> 
> For goodness sake, Bruno, what are you talking about? You cannot 'disagree 
> with this interpretation'. That is what the singlet state when the particles 
> have separated means.

Meaning = interpretation. There is no consensus how to interpret the wave, even 
among “many-worlders”. Nothing is obvious here.




>  
> 
> The singlet state refer to a continuum of relative worlds accessible to all 
> Alice and Bobs sharing the entangled particles.
> 
> Ah, yes. Here we go again. Your really are confused by this state, Bruno.

I take patronising remark like this one as a failure of your part. I just let 
you know.




> You keep referring to the fact that it is rotationally invariant, and can be 
> analysed in any basis, as though that made a substantive difference. The 
> results obtain in any basis, true. But that is a trivial observation of 
> symmetry. It does not explain the observed experimental results.

It explains it, without introducing any FTL action.




> 
>  
>> let us call them (t1,x1) and (t2,x2), where the x1 and x2 stand for 
>> 3-vectors. The spacetime interval between these particles or events when 
>> measured, is s^2 = (t1-t2)^2 - (x1-x2)^2. When s^2 > 0, the separation is 
>> time-like, and when s^2 < 0, the separation is space-like (in the (+,-,-,-) 
>> metric that I am using. When Alice makes her measurement, she gets, say, 
>> 'up’.
> 
> Now, all Alice get some result, some get ‘down' to.
> 
> Read on, old son. You might find that this is mentioned below.
>  
>> According to the above non-separable wave function, that means that Bob gets 
>> only the ket |->,
> 
> That is vague. It means that Alice will access to the Bobs who get that 
> state, and never access to the Bobs who did not got it.
> 
> Exactly. And this is what you are required to explain. Just stating it as a 
> fact is not an explanation. 


When Alice and Bob are separated, and measure their particles state, the MWI 
only ask that whatever they found will be correlated. In the world where Alice 
finds “up", Bob will find "down", and in the world where Alice finds “down”Bob 
will find “up”. But without any FTL

Re: Wave structure of matter

> On 5 Oct 2019, at 15:47, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 4:26:44 AM UTC-5, Samiya wrote:
> Interesting! 
> Consider the ayaat quoted in this slide:
> 
> I suppose next you will say the Koran has a hidden solution to Riemann's 
> conjecture on the ζ-function. I have met or known Christian who have said 
> such things about the Bible; all that can be known is in scripture. 
> 
> Scriptures work because people can twist them around to say almost anything. 
> That is how these things work and why they persist. This only talks about 
> lightning in a way not different from ideas of Thor throwing thunderbolts. It 
> say nothing of real significance.

There has been study showing why people extract sense from pure randomness, and 
even more from any text, when they are motivated to see them there.

Now I use often the bible to shake a bit the witness of Jehovah, when asking 
them if PI is equal to 3, as said implicitly in the Bible. Some say “yes”, 
showing the “authority argument” implicit in such reading.

Of course the theology of the greeks was dissociated rather clearly from all 
myth and legend. Only reasoning was accepted, even if motivated by personal 
feeling or experience.

Religion is in no text, and concerned the non nameable things, from Cantor 
collection of all sets, to natural numbers, which cannot be defined (provably 
so with Mechanism, but also true intuitively when you think about it.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9f2ceaed-2f58-4a5a-a3d1-2550e620f07d%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CC3335A5-A74A-4388-99D7-8A32741947C5%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Wave structure of matter



> On 5 Oct 2019, at 00:27, Eva  wrote:
> 
> Hello
> 
> I wonder what you think about Milo Wollf proposals? There is not a lot 
> crittical elaborations of his statemants on the internet.
> Here is one and very brief:
> http://www.paradigmshiftnow.net/fundamental_reality/critical_notes_on_Milo_Wolff.htm
> 
> And here are his statemants in few words:
> 
> "The proposals of Clifford and Schroedinger were correct that an electron is 
> a continuouswave structure in space, not a material particle,


That is already a contradiction. A continuous wave structure in space is 
already something material, or I have no idea what is meant by “not material”, 
unless it is a form of mathematicalism , but sill physicalism.




> and point particles and electromagneticwaves are merely appearances 
> (schaumkommen).The Schroedinger wave functions mustbe interpreted as the 
> electron itself, not as probabilities.Many classic paradoxes,including, 
> ‘renormalization’, wave-particle duality, and Copenhagen uncertainty, 
> nolonger occur because they were caused by the notion of a material particle 
> that does not
> 11
> exist.

OK. It is mathematicalist physicalism (still requiring non-mechanism in the 
philosophy of mind).



> There is no causality violation because the in-waves are real and do not 
> runbackwards in time.
> The wave medium - the space around us - is the ONE source of matter and the 
> naturallaws.Because the waves of each particle of matter are inter-mingled 
> with the waves ofother matter and all contribute to the density of the 
> medium, it follows that every chargedparticle is part of the universe and the 
> universe is part of each charged particle.Althoughthe dominant portion of 
> each particle wave lies near the center, every wave structurereaches to 
> infinity.
> Principle II (extended Mach principle) states that the stars and galaxies of 
> the universeare essential to the laws of Nature and to the existence of the 
> Earth and ourselves.Thisimportant fact is not presently familiar to the 
> physics community.For example, thepresent Physical Society Standard Model of 
> the universe contain no recognition ofMach’s Principle, our dependence on the 
> universe, or the interrelationships of matterthroughout the universe.But it 
> is unthinkable that the Earth, and us, could exist withoutthe presence of 
> other cosmological matter.
> The propagation of light in a fiber is a quantum-wave energy exchange 
> betweenmolecules at the input device and molecules at the receiving 
> device.The fiber serves toguide the exchange of waves between them.This truth 
> of Nature will profitably replacethe misleading photon ‘bullet’ which served 
> only to calculate energy conservation.
> There is a dark side to the development of science.It is tempting to imagine 
> scientists asnoble pioneers, questing for the greater good of humanity, and 
> transfixed by thewonderful mysteries of the world.However the day to day 
> history of nearly every radicaldiscovery tell an entirely different story 
> portraying a community that usually votes itspocketbook.Scientists are no 
> different than you or I.Recognizing this will helpunderstand why the science 
> community had not avidly sought the Wave Structure ofMatter.It takes a long 
> time to dispel treasured scientific illusions even though followingthe path 
> of the discrete particle led science down a dead end street.".
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t=web=j=https://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/einstein/talks/wolff.pdf=2ahUKEwiJiNr3zIPlAhVRXhoKHd5YBkwQFjAIegQIAhAB=AOvVaw0hkUI4odbhDNSbcPCQX0Gz

OK, confirm my feeling that it is mathematicalist physicalism, to be short. It 
cannot work in the frame of the digital mechanist hypothesis in the cognitive 
science (as explained in my papers).

Bruno






> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/260d8e6e-96c6-4fc2-8d65-2006bc8954b9%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/EC784894-D82E-4C13-8486-087E4A6AC44D%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.