Re: Probability in Everettian QM

2020-09-12 Thread PGC 


On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 11:43:48 AM UTC+2 Bruno Marchal wrote:

> On 9 Sep 2020, at 16:29, PGC  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 11:38:32 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> With Mechanism, we do have an ontological reductionism: only numbers 
>> exist, with only two simple laws: addition and multiplication. Then the 
>> physical reality emerges as a first person plural persistent sharable 
>> interfering web of histories, which is confirmed by quantum mechanics 
>> without collapse, up to now.
>>
>> It is the believer in a “physical reality out there” to explain how it 
>> manage to make some computations more real than other. It is up to them to 
>> show some evidence for that belief. 
>>
>
> That's easy. For millennia, by the rules of your discourse, every 
> person/number killing another with some weapon essentially states: "This 
> computation is more real. This one." 
>
> There's been too much evidence of that kind, and any form of determinism 
> essentially justifies all of that evidence, citing some truth or realism á 
> la "that's the way the dovetailer runs" in a fatalistic manner. This sort 
> of relativism leads to forgone conclusions about the nature of life, 
> essentially disintegrating any/all forms of violence, when science should 
> pursue said nature of life with the hope of its optimization. I see this as 
> evidence of ideology within your discourse, as "no ethics" with regards to 
> numbers is mere nihilism/relativity/fatalism.
>
>
>
> On the contrary, with mechanism there are some objective moral laws 
> derivable from the machine theology, like “it is immoral tp do the moral to 
> the others”.
>

That statement tends toward relativism though as it “does the moral to the 
others” by declaring itself.


> Then mechanism also refute all reductionist conception of humans, as it is 
> refute all reduction conception of machine.
>

Many ideologies with gods and their creations offer the same and many go 
far beyond that. For example, I just now created an ideology of citrus that 
refutes all reductionist conceptions of everything and offers loyal 
disciples some vitamin C in any cocktail of their choice. 

In the cocktail glass we can observe the buoyancy of citrus, so while you 
guys sit around here wondering about preludes to a metaphysics unstated, 
drowning in a sea of details and linguistic hallucinations, yours truly and 
the god of this new ideology that is the oldest ideology remain buoyant.
 

>
>
>
>
> Even if physics were obtained in a satisfying manner from self-reference, 
> I'd tend towards interpretations that don't evaporate questions of 
> violence, good, and evil for some relativism; as tricky as they may be... 
> my hunch is that those questions related to the large variety of 
> descriptions of selfhood/subject need further elaboration. 
>
>
>
> The consequence of Mechanism, like of Darwinism, should not be changed 
> according to our wishes. That would be like hiding truth, or a possible 
> truth, for terrestrial purpose. We can build some ethics, but not let it 
> decide for true and false. That was the main error brought by the 
> institutionalisation of religion, I think.
>

That assumes absolute truth discerning ability, especially the first two 
sentences. THAT IS the very error of which the last sentence warns readers.
 

>
>
>
>  
>
>> This requires to abandon digital mechanism eventually.
>>
>> If you or anyone have still a problem with this, I can explain more. This 
>> is known since the 1930s, but ignored by many.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>> PS I will certainly say more on this, but now I have hundred of exam 
>> copies to note...
>>
>
> You have exam papers to grade now at the beginning of the school year?
>
>
> Yes. The second session of September, and the admission exams. Covid-19 
> doubles the work. But it is OK, it is my job.
>
 
Just give admission to everybody! WTF Bruno, why do you complain that folks 
don’t get into computer science enough but fail them for some exercise 
failure based on a reductionist conception of humans/machines? The ones you 
fail will tend to move towards beliefs in collapse. PGC

-- 
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/990ae695-019e-4f69-8f39-e15256c48c3fn%40googlegroups.com.

Many Worlds wins another one

2020-09-12 Thread John Clark 
Roger Penrose had proposed a rival to Everett's Many Worlds as an
Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In his Idea the Quantum Wave Function
really does physically collapse and timing of the collapse depends on a
random element and on gravity and thus on the mass density of particles in
superposition; the more massive the object the shorter the time before the
wave collapses and Penrose said that was the reason our everyday macro
world appears to follow classical physics to an excellent approximation.
However in the September 7 2020 issue of the journal Nature Physics there
is a report of an experiment done in a laboratory deep under the GranSasso
Mountain in Italy that produced results that are NOT compatible with
Penrose's theory.

Underground test of gravity-related wave function collapse


Test of wave function collapse suggests gravity is not the answer


 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/CAJPayv13f5fMhs2f3XoPsnhze4nRQeRhqq_GjCDTnwCO8FLsJg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

2020-09-12 Thread Bruno Marchal 

> On 11 Sep 2020, at 15:49, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:31 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>> >>>I gave you the answer for year, but it asks for distinguishing the 1p and 
>> >>>the 3p
> >> And that is absolutely positively 100% impossible because in a world where 
> >> self duplication is common place there is no such thing as THE first 
> >> person.
>  
> >That is equivalent to saying that when we undergo a self-duplication, and 
> >thus even just a brain transplant, we die.
> 
> No, that would be equivalent to saying "there is no such thing as A first 
> person", and saying such a thing would be absurd. I know for a fact that I am 
> conscious therefore I know for a fact that A first person exists; I am almost 
> certain that I am not the only conscious being in the universe therefore I am 
> almost certain THE first person does not exist.
>  
> >>> For both copies, “the first person” is the one in the mirror they see 
> >>> themselves in the city they feel to be in.
> 
> >> Then I guess you don't think the Helsinki man of yesterday survived 
> >> because today there is nobody in Helsinki and the mirror there is blank.
> 
> > I don’t see how that follows. It would be like saying that John Clark is 
> > dead right now in all places he is absent. 
> 
> You are absolutely correct, saying that would be exactly like saying John 
> Clark is dead right now in all places he is absent; but then I'm not the one 
> who said "For both copies, “the first person” is the one in the mirror they 
> see themselves in the city they feel to be in”.

If there is *a* first person, then “the” first person is the nique one you can 
feel to be after the duplication. There are two 1-p only in the 3-p view of 
them (3-1-p), but the subjective  life of the copies are pure 1-p, 1-1-p, 
1-1-1-p, etc. After n duplications, each copies know there 1-p histories, and 
what was meant by “The” in the the question asked in Helsinki.

If you call this “ambiguity”, just see the result as an understanding that the 
laws of physics is a calculus of first person ambiguity instead of a first 
person statistics. The mathematics gives 6 calculus, so some nuances in the 
naming is welcome. The quantum formalism will then also introduce “ambiguity”, 
because (without collapse) if mechanism is correct, the quantum originate from 
that first person fuzziness, uncertainty, credibility, statistics ...

Bruno


> 
> > You are also predicting that if you look at the schroedinger cat, you die.
> 
> Somebody did indeed predict that but that somebody was certainly NOT John 
> Clark, because John Clark was NOT the one who said "the first person” is the 
> one in the mirror they see themselves in the city they feel to be in".
>  
> > OK. But none get the feeling of his doppelgänger in any direct way. They 
> > have become two persons, with distinct and unique first person experience, 
> > and both are the H-man. Personal identity is not transitive. 
> 
> At last I agree with you about something!
> 
> 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/CAJPayv01igmSQ%3DfFHvbKhf0%3DnT69GFqH93axpefFmkHR6tCTLg%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/8F44E071-B361-4BFA-8D22-66846BE339FA%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

2020-09-12 Thread Bruno Marchal 

> On 11 Sep 2020, at 15:12, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:11 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> >> When self duplication becomes commonplace I think the English language 
> >> will need to change so much that what people will say would be 
> >> incomprehensible to an English speaker in the early 21st century when self 
> >> duplication was anything but commonplace.
> 
> > Then this should have happened since long, as you and me are already 
> > differentiate results from the first amoeba…
> 
> Amoebas don't have a language and probably aren't conscious,

Amoebas communicate through little piece of DNA exchange. The genome of a 
bacteria is Turing universal. I take it as quite speculative that amoebas are 
not conscious. Then we duplicate ourselves biologically (twins, brother, etc.). 
The doppelgänger is not much more than a twin, and for obvious reason, 
self-duplication will be tolerated virtually, in a small number of exemplars.
This is a bit distracting. What might change is that the John Clarks of the 
world will understand the first person indeterminacy, and eventually the 
machine’s theory of consciousness and matter, which is basically what 
Pythagorus, Moderatus, Plato, Plotinus, … already found.

Bruno





> my fellow human beings certainly do have a language and probably are 
> conscious. 
> 
>  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/CAJPayv3bfbo1t6nZ41WMxAA3NUR2%3DkY8noTHK8t2EdCrf15b9Q%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/2C0FBCFE-F866-4FBD-A425-6B410337765A%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

2020-09-12 Thread Bruno Marchal 

> On 11 Sep 2020, at 15:03, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:33 AM Stathis Papaioannou  > wrote:
> 
> >> when something that would now take paragraphs to explain becomes 
> >> intuitively obvious to everybody on a gut level people will say things in 
> >> a language whose grammar is totally different from anything spoken by 
> >> anybody living today. Early 21st-century speech will seem very archaic and 
> >> naïve to them.
> 
> > There would be social and legal changes,
> 
> That is the understatement of the millennium, of the last several hundred 
> millennia actually.  
>  
> > but people's psychology, developed over at least hundreds of thousands of 
> > years, would remain the same.
> 
> If any being wishes to function and also to communicate after self 
> duplication becomes commonplace then language would have to change RADICALLY 
> because circumstances have changed to something different from anything they 
> were even remotely like in the last few hundred thousand years since humans 
> evolved. For an organism to remain viable radical changes in the environment 
> require radical changes in behavior. If you're right and humans are hardwired 
> in such a way that they are incapable of changing then the only alternative 
> is to cease communicating, or cease functioning, or use genetic engineering 
> to change the hardwiring.


We duplicate ourselves already, in two or three ways:  biologically, in the 
quantum superposition, and in arithmetic.

To meet our doppelgänger might not even happen, for legal reason or something, 
and laws have to evolved, but the big change will be in metaphysics with the 
abandon of (weak) materialism and the growing understanding of the importance 
of the (first) person. The change will be more like the return of theology in 
science, and the progress in the human science.

Will language change? We can hope it will better distinguish the modalities 
~[]p and []~p, but we can doubt, as they are reason to get this since long, and 
language rarely reflect metaphysics, except for interjection.

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1e---QBH8LUPPbUOGZHRP%2BAdsgQ9x8iy0kdoE4d5iEGA%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/88528749-C9DF-4F48-91E7-6D68A4317C93%40ulb.ac.be.