date:20210115

Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg

2021-01-15 Thread Alan Grayson

Most likely, US vs China. Our Secretary of State recently disavowed "One 
China, Two Systems" policy. Maybe not featured in this following link, but 
the disavowal makes sense given what China has been doing in Hong Kong. AG

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/2021-gray-swan-us-and-china-go-war-over-taiwan

On Friday, January 15, 2021 at 6:49:41 PM UTC-7 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> This is a video everyone should watch. In working on cyber-security since 
> last spring I have brushed into some of this and have come to know CICADA 
> and its role on the dark web. The world we live in is in a precarious 
> state, where our infrastructure depends on systems of vast complexity, but 
> at the same time more of humanity seems to be entering into some sort of 
> voluntary schizophrenic state. 
>
>  This makes an important connection with this bizarre subculture of 
> cryptography on the web. There is literally a vast network of people out 
> there doing these things. In college I was a bit of a hacker, but it was 
> elementary stuff. Today, there is a dark industry of hacking the internet, 
> and this has resulted in a continual war. This war makes light of the old 
> saying, "Is this a private fight or can anyone join in?" Everyone has 
> joined, and it is a huge multi-networked struggle or conflict that involves 
> ultimately all of us.
>
>  I worked as a contractor to two companies that did work with the INTEL 
> community. The reality then was you has the United States and the Soviet 
> Union in a dynamic tension, and this involved what I worked on which was 
> SIGINT, or signals in intelligence. The matrix of actors of this sort has 
> grown exponentially since the time of the late 80s and the first half of 
> the 90s. What occurs with cyber-security, even in the private world, is 
> much the same and it curiosly involves propaganda games. QAnon is really 
> just the propaganda wing of a much larger network of actors. In fact I 
> suspect QAnon will fade away, but something or maybe several new things 
> will emerge this decade.
>
>  About every century some region of the world enters into some sort of 
> gregarious group-thought hypermania. This results in a mass disaster. Last 
> century this took place in Russia, Italy, Germany and Japan. Before then it 
> was the Napoleonic wars, and this pattern can be seen through the 
> reformation wars back to the middle ages. Even tribal or indigenous 
> societies can have a pattern of this, where every 3 or 4 generations they 
> tend to fight wars. We are coming in queue here for the next big global 
> tango, It also might be worth pointing out these have tended to happen with 
> the introduction of new communication technologies. None of this looks at 
> all good.
>
>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4vb6UWhf3o
>

-- 
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/29c38479-0e06-4397-9d03-ff5640a5654dn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

2021-01-15 Thread Relatable

No, I'm trying to understand.

It's just too underwhelming, don't know what expeirment is needed to
suggest otherwise.


On Sat, 16 Jan 2021, 02:33 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List, <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> I don't think you're disagreeing with me.   I'm saying you have only
> measured something when it is entangled with you and with the
> environment.  The "friend", as I understand the experiment, is entangled
> with the system but not with the environment.
>
> Brent
>
> On 1/15/2021 5:00 PM, smitra wrote:
> > Decoherence should be irrelevant. Whether or not you (considered as
> > some given physical system) have measured something, should not only
> > depend on the entanglement between the measured system and those that
> > belong to you.
> >
> > Saibal
> >
> > On 16-01-2021 00:48, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
> >> The Wigner's friend experiment proves a lot less than they headlines
> >> hype.
> >>
> >> The "friends" are quantum 1-degree-of-freedom systems, so they don't
> >> decohere, and it's questionable to say they've measured anything.
> >>
> >> Brent
> >>
> >> On 1/15/2021 3:27 PM, Alina Gutoreva wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Before an idea is told, it’s never been true [1]?”-kind of
> >>> idea OR “levels [2]”-kind of idea? Or both [3]? I’m confused.
> >>>
> >>> Please, don’t be angry.
> >>>
> >>> Ally
> >>>
> >>> On 15 Jan 2021, at 22:34, Alan Grayson 
> >>> wrote:
> >>> Why not assume the wf applies only before the measurement? Or why
> >>> not withhold judgement on a phenomenon not yet understood? Instead
> >>> you totally dismiss empirical evidence that no one ever observes a
> >>> split. AG
> >>>
> >>> On Friday, January 15, 2021 at 1:18:53 PM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com
> >>> [4] wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 2:22 PM Alan Grayson 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Why do you assume that the initial observer splits after initial
> >>> trial when it's not observed? AG
> >>>
> >>> For heaven sake haven't you been listening?! Because that is the
> >>> least bizarre interpretation anybody can think of to explain the
> >>> utterly bizarre results observed from the two slit experiment. There
> >>> is just no getting around it, if Many Worlds isn't true then
> >>> something even stranger must be.
> >>>
> >>> 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/2a6bf029-a37a-4049-ab90-0ee889ba9820n%40googlegroups.com
> >>
> >> [5].
> >>
> >>  --
> >> 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/5BC6546E-8F24-4D9E-B432-23A92433AB94%40gmail.com
> >>
> >> [6].
> >>
> >>  --
> >> 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/0dc3eab3-583d-2c41-d7c7-9dfc8d4f9145%40verizon.net
> >>
> >> [7].
> >>
> >>
> >> Links:
> >> --
> >> [1]
> >>
> https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/03/12/136684/a-quantum-experiment-suggests-theres-no-such-thing-as-objective-reality/
> >>
> >> [2] https://t.me/decision_insights/523
> >> [3] https://t.me/decision_insights/311
> >> [4] http://gmail.com
> >> [5]
> >>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2a6bf029-a37a-4049-ab90-0ee889ba9820n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=emailutm_source=footer
> >>
> >> [6]
> >>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5BC6546E-8F24-4D9E-B432-23A92433AB94%40gmail.com?utm_medium=emailutm_source=footer
> >>
> >> [7]
> >>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0dc3eab3-583d-2c41-d7c7-9dfc8d4f9145%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email_source=footer
> >>
> >
>
> --
> 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/4244b424-8182-d20f-1735-1c6cf36bedf3%40verizon.net
> .
>

-- 
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

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

2021-01-15 Thread Alan Grayson



On Friday, January 15, 2021 at 6:16:25 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 5:56 am, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:36:39 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 4:01 pm, Alan Grayson  
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 3:15:47 PM UTC-7, Pierz wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:07:59 PM UTC+11 
> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:26:42 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:42:43 PM UTC+11 
>>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 8:29:16 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:

> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 1:23:11 PM UTC+11 
> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 4:33:20 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 5:50:29 PM UTC+11 
>>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 10:19:59 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 12:09:06 PM UTC+11 
> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 3:56:51 PM UTC-7 
>> johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 5:21 PM Alan Grayson <
>>> agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> *> The MWI doesn't guarantee that these subsequent 
 measurements, for subsequent horse races say, are occurring in 
 the SAME 
 OTHER worlds as trials progress, to get ensembles in those 
 OTHER worlds. *
>>>
>>>  
>>> I don't know what you mean by "SAME OTHER worlds", the same 
>>> as what? In one world Alan Grayson remembers having seen the 
>>> electron go 
>>> left, in another world Alan Grayson remembers having seen the 
>>> electron go 
>>> right, other than that the two worlds are absolutely identical, 
>>> so which 
>>> one was the "SAME OTHER world"?
>>>
>>> > You seem to avoid the fact that no where does the MWI 
 guarantee [...]
>>>
>>>
>>> Quantum mechanics is not in the guarantee business, it deals 
>>> with probability.  
>>>
>>> *> I don't think you understand my point, which isn't 
 complicated. *
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, your point is very simple indeed, but the word simple 
>>> can have 2 meanings, one of them is complementary and the 
>>> other not so much.  
>>>
>>
>> In first trial, the MWI postulates other worlds comes into 
>> existence. Same other worlds in second trial? Same other worlds 
>> in third 
>> trial, etc? Where does the MWI assert these other worlds are the 
>> SAME other 
>> worlds? Unless it does, you only have ONE measurement in each of 
>> these 
>> worlds. No probability exists in these other worlds since no 
>> ensemble of 
>> measurements exist in these other world. AG
>>
>  
> You grossly misunderstand MWI. There are no "same other" 
> worlds. The worlds that arise at each trial are different in 
> precisely one 
> way and one way only: the eigenvalue recorded for the experiment. 
> The 
> different eigenvalues will then give rise to a "wave of 
> differentiations" 
> as the consequences of that singular difference ramifies, causing 
> the 
> different worlds generated by the original experimental 
> difference to 
> multiply. "World" really means a unique configuration of the 
> universal wave 
> function, so two worlds at different trials can't possibly be the 
> "same 
> world", and yes, there is only one measurement in each.
>

 This is what I have been saying all along! AG

>>> No it isn't. I agree you have been saying there is only one 
>>> measurement outcome in each world. However this business about 
>>> "same other 
>>> worlds" betrays your lack of comprehension. It's not that MWI 
>>> "doesn't 
>>> guarantee" that the the worlds at each trial are the same world. 
>>> It's that 
>>> the whole notion of "same other worlds" means nothing in this 
>>> context and 
>>> has no bearing on anything. A bit like arguing when we

Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg

2021-01-15 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

For me, all I need to see is which companies are doing the censoring? Which 
universities are censoring for the "safety of the students"-even if the 
students are the aggressors? Which banks, and corporations are now threatening 
money cutoffs? We had 7 months of sporadic riots and the liberals (which I 
sometimes side with) and now they freak out when conservatives targets the 
capital. Could that be a conspiracy too? Possibly, or maybe it was Bastille Day 
sort of? 
Is this merely a spell of international madness due to the plague? Not sure, 
but I tend to look to the royals of 2013 across Europe, pissing away what 
stability they had built before, in their nationalist competition over land and 
power. The destabilization that followed produced the Soviet takeover of mother 
Russia, and the Treaty of Versailles, the German hyperinflation, and later the 
depression which became the Great Depression, yadda yadda etc. So, maybe this 
time it will be Globalism that triggers the wars and revolutions? 
My guess is that if a conspiracy occurred, it was the billionaire$ wanting 
their China money back, because that what occurred under Captain Orange, was 
the big tariffs. What about the near future with new leaders? It depends on how 
the economy goes, if the lockdowns from 19 continue way past mass vaxing, war, 
peace, all the fun stuff. Possibly a national split? We shall see...
You all were doing so well with the Born discussions too! Shucks!


-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Fri, Jan 15, 2021 8:49 pm
Subject: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg

Thisis a video everyone should watch. In working on cyber-security since 
lastspring I have brushed into some of this and have come to know CICADA and 
itsrole on the dark web. The world we live in is in a precarious state, where 
ourinfrastructure depends on systems of vast complexity, but at the same time 
moreof humanity seems to be entering into some sort of voluntary 
schizophrenicstate.  Thismakes an important connection with this bizarre 
subculture of cryptography onthe web. There is literally a vast network of 
people out there doing thesethings. In college I was a bit of a hacker, but it 
was elementary stuff. Today,there is a dark industry of hacking the internet, 
and this has resulted in acontinual war. This war makes light of the old 
saying, "Is this a private fightor can anyone join in?" Everyone has joined, 
and it is a hugemulti-networked struggle or conflict that involves ultimately 
all of us. Iworked as a contractor to two companies that did work with the 
INTEL community.The reality then was you has the United States and the Soviet 
Union in adynamic tension, and this involved what I worked on which was SIGINT, 
orsignals in intelligence. The matrix of actors of this sort has 
grownexponentially since the time of the late 80s and the first half of the 
90s.What occurs with cyber-security, even in the private world, is much the 
sameand it curiosly involves propaganda games. QAnon is really just the 
propagandawing of a much larger network of actors. In fact I suspect QAnon will 
fadeaway, but something or maybe several new things will emerge this decade. 
Aboutevery century some region of the world enters into some sort of 
gregariousgroup-thought hypermania. This results in a mass disaster. Last 
century thistook place in Russia, Italy, Germany and Japan. Before then it was 
theNapoleonic wars, and this pattern can be seen through the reformation wars 
backto the middle ages. Even tribal or indigenous societies can have a pattern 
ofthis, where every 3 or 4 generations they tend to fight wars. We are coming 
inqueue here for the next big global tango, It also might be worth pointing 
outthese have tended to happen with the introduction of new 
communicationtechnologies. None of this looks at all good. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4vb6UWhf3o-- 
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/673de927-9b5e-4ebe-9001-7066a5155d9cn%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/294442144.56574.1610766019106%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

2021-01-15 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

I don't think you're disagreeing with me. I'm saying you have only
measured something when it is entangled with you and with the
environment. The "friend", as I understand the experiment, is entangled
with the system but not with the environment.

Brent

On 1/15/2021 5:00 PM, smitra wrote:
Decoherence should be irrelevant. Whether or not you (considered as
some given physical system) have measured something, should not only
depend on the entanglement between the measured system and those that
belong to you.

Saibal

On 16-01-2021 00:48, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:

The Wigner's friend experiment proves a lot less than they headlines
hype.

The "friends" are quantum 1-degree-of-freedom systems, so they don't
decohere, and it's questionable to say they've measured anything.

Brent

On 1/15/2021 3:27 PM, Alina Gutoreva wrote:

"Before an idea is told, it’s never been true [1]?”-kind of
idea OR “levels [2]”-kind of idea? Or both [3]? I’m confused.

Please, don’t be angry.

Ally

On 15 Jan 2021, at 22:34, Alan Grayson
wrote:
Why not assume the wf applies only before the measurement? Or why
not withhold judgement on a phenomenon not yet understood? Instead
you totally dismiss empirical evidence that no one ever observes a
split. AG

On Friday, January 15, 2021 at 1:18:53 PM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com
[4] wrote:

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 2:22 PM Alan Grayson
wrote:

Why do you assume that the initial observer splits after initial

trial when it's not observed? AG

For heaven sake haven't you been listening?! Because that is the
least bizarre interpretation anybody can think of to explain the
utterly bizarre results observed from the two slit experiment. There
is just no getting around it, if Many Worlds isn't true then
something even stranger must be.

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/2a6bf029-a37a-4049-ab90-0ee889ba9820n%40googlegroups.com

[5].

[6].

[7].

Links:
--
[1]
https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/03/12/136684/a-quantum-experiment-suggests-theres-no-such-thing-as-objective-reality/

[2] https://t.me/decision_insights/523
[3] https://t.me/decision_insights/311
[4] http://gmail.com
[5]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2a6bf029-a37a-4049-ab90-0ee889ba9820n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=emailutm_source=footer

[6]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5BC6546E-8F24-4D9E-B432-23A92433AB94%40gmail.com?utm_medium=emailutm_source=footer

[7]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0dc3eab3-583d-2c41-d7c7-9dfc8d4f9145%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email_source=footer

--
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/4244b424-8182-d20f-1735-1c6cf36bedf3%40verizon.net.

Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg

2021-01-15 Thread Lawrence Crowell

This is a video everyone should watch. In working on cyber-security since
last spring I have brushed into some of this and have come to know CICADA
and its role on the dark web. The world we live in is in a precarious
state, where our infrastructure depends on systems of vast complexity, but
at the same time more of humanity seems to be entering into some sort of
voluntary schizophrenic state.

This makes an important connection with this bizarre subculture of
cryptography on the web. There is literally a vast network of people out
there doing these things. In college I was a bit of a hacker, but it was
elementary stuff. Today, there is a dark industry of hacking the internet,
and this has resulted in a continual war. This war makes light of the old
saying, "Is this a private fight or can anyone join in?" Everyone has
joined, and it is a huge multi-networked struggle or conflict that involves
ultimately all of us.

I worked as a contractor to two companies that did work with the INTEL
community. The reality then was you has the United States and the Soviet
Union in a dynamic tension, and this involved what I worked on which was
SIGINT, or signals in intelligence. The matrix of actors of this sort has
grown exponentially since the time of the late 80s and the first half of
the 90s. What occurs with cyber-security, even in the private world, is
much the same and it curiosly involves propaganda games. QAnon is really
just the propaganda wing of a much larger network of actors. In fact I
suspect QAnon will fade away, but something or maybe several new things
will emerge this decade.

About every century some region of the world enters into some sort of
gregarious group-thought hypermania. This results in a mass disaster. Last
century this took place in Russia, Italy, Germany and Japan. Before then it
was the Napoleonic wars, and this pattern can be seen through the
reformation wars back to the middle ages. Even tribal or indigenous
societies can have a pattern of this, where every 3 or 4 generations they
tend to fight wars. We are coming in queue here for the next big global
tango, It also might be worth pointing out these have tended to happen with
the introduction of new communication technologies. None of this looks at
all good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4vb6UWhf3o

--
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/673de927-9b5e-4ebe-9001-7066a5155d9cn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

2021-01-15 Thread smitra

On 16-01-2021 02:00, smitra wrote:

Decoherence should be irrelevant. Whether or not you (considered as
some given physical system) have measured something, should not only
depend on the entanglement between the measured system and those that
belong to you.

Correction: ...Should only depend on..

Saibal

On 16-01-2021 00:48, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:

The Wigner's friend experiment proves a lot less than they headlines
hype.

The "friends" are quantum 1-degree-of-freedom systems, so they don't
decohere, and it's questionable to say they've measured anything.

Brent

On 1/15/2021 3:27 PM, Alina Gutoreva wrote:

"Before an idea is told, it’s never been true [1]?”-kind of
idea OR “levels [2]”-kind of idea? Or both [3]? I’m confused.

Please, don’t be angry.

Ally

On Friday, January 15, 2021 at 1:18:53 PM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com
[4] wrote:

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 2:22 PM Alan Grayson
wrote:

Why do you assume that the initial observer splits after initial

trial when it's not observed? 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/5BC6546E-8F24-4D9E-B432-23A92433AB94%40gmail.com
[6].

--
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/0dc3eab3-583d-2c41-d7c7-9dfc8d4f9145%40verizon.net
[7].

Links:
--
[1]
https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/03/12/136684/a-quantum-experiment-suggests-theres-no-such-thing-as-objective-reality/
[2] https://t.me/decision_insights/523
[3] https://t.me/decision_insights/311
[4] http://gmail.com
[5]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2a6bf029-a37a-4049-ab90-0ee889ba9820n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=emailutm_source=footer
[6]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5BC6546E-8F24-4D9E-B432-23A92433AB94%40gmail.com?utm_medium=emailutm_source=footer
[7]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0dc3eab3-583d-2c41-d7c7-9dfc8d4f9145%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email_source=footer

--
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/1e0e687a99aabb6738bc92badf1432ae%40zonnet.nl.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

2021-01-15 Thread Pierz Newton-John

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 5:56 am, Alan Grayson  wrote:

>
>
> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:36:39 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 4:01 pm, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 3:15:47 PM UTC-7, Pierz wrote:



 On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:07:59 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com
 wrote:

> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:26:42 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:42:43 PM UTC+11
>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 8:29:16 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>>>
 On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 1:23:11 PM UTC+11
 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 4:33:20 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 5:50:29 PM UTC+11
>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 10:19:59 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>>>


 On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 12:09:06 PM UTC+11
 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 3:56:51 PM UTC-7
> johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 5:21 PM Alan Grayson <
>> agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> *> The MWI doesn't guarantee that these subsequent
>>> measurements, for subsequent horse races say, are occurring in 
>>> the SAME
>>> OTHER worlds as trials progress, to get ensembles in those 
>>> OTHER worlds. *
>>
>>
>> I don't know what you mean by "SAME OTHER worlds", the same
>> as what? In one world Alan Grayson remembers having seen the 
>> electron go
>> left, in another world Alan Grayson remembers having seen the 
>> electron go
>> right, other than that the two worlds are absolutely identical, 
>> so which
>> one was the "SAME OTHER world"?
>>
>> > You seem to avoid the fact that no where does the MWI
>>> guarantee [...]
>>
>>
>> Quantum mechanics is not in the guarantee business, it deals
>> with probability.
>>
>> *> I don't think you understand my point, which isn't
>>> complicated. *
>>
>>
>> Yes, your point is very simple indeed, but the word simple
>> can have 2 meanings, one of them is complementary and the
>> other not so much.
>>
>
> In first trial, the MWI postulates other worlds comes into
> existence. Same other worlds in second trial? Same other worlds 
> in third
> trial, etc? Where does the MWI assert these other worlds are the 
> SAME other
> worlds? Unless it does, you only have ONE measurement in each of 
> these
> worlds. No probability exists in these other worlds since no 
> ensemble of
> measurements exist in these other world. AG
>

 You grossly misunderstand MWI. There are no "same other"
 worlds. The worlds that arise at each trial are different in 
 precisely one
 way and one way only: the eigenvalue recorded for the experiment. 
 The
 different eigenvalues will then give rise to a "wave of 
 differentiations"
 as the consequences of that singular difference ramifies, causing 
 the
 different worlds generated by the original experimental difference 
 to
 multiply. "World" really means a unique configuration of the 
 universal wave
 function, so two worlds at different trials can't possibly be the 
 "same
 world", and yes, there is only one measurement in each.

>>>
>>> This is what I have been saying all along! AG
>>>
>> No it isn't. I agree you have been saying there is only one
>> measurement outcome in each world. However this business about "same 
>> other
>> worlds" betrays your lack of comprehension. It's not that MWI 
>> "doesn't
>> guarantee" that the the worlds at each trial are the same world. 
>> It's that
>> the whole notion of "same other worlds" means nothing in this 
>> context and
>> has no bearing on anything. A bit like arguing when we add 1 and 1 
>> twice
>> whether we are guaranteed that the ones we add each time are the 
>> "SAME
>> ones" at each addition. If mathematics can't guarantee that then how 
>> can we
>>

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

2021-01-15 Thread smitra

Decoherence should be irrelevant. Whether or not you (considered as some
given physical system) have measured something, should not only depend
on the entanglement between the measured system and those that belong to
you.

Saibal

On 16-01-2021 00:48, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:

The Wigner's friend experiment proves a lot less than they headlines
hype.

The "friends" are quantum 1-degree-of-freedom systems, so they don't
decohere, and it's questionable to say they've measured anything.

Brent

On 1/15/2021 3:27 PM, Alina Gutoreva wrote:

"Before an idea is told, it’s never been true [1]?”-kind of
idea OR “levels [2]”-kind of idea? Or both [3]? I’m confused.

Please, don’t be angry.

Ally

On Friday, January 15, 2021 at 1:18:53 PM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com
[4] wrote:

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 2:22 PM Alan Grayson
wrote:

Why do you assume that the initial observer splits after initial

trial when it's not observed? 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/5BC6546E-8F24-4D9E-B432-23A92433AB94%40gmail.com
[6].

--
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/0dc3eab3-583d-2c41-d7c7-9dfc8d4f9145%40verizon.net
[7].

--
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/5b9ef84b6ce585689a5c05d17bc75aa7%40zonnet.nl.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

2021-01-15 Thread Alina Gutoreva

"Before an idea is told, it’s never been true 
?”-kind
 of idea OR “levels ”-kind of idea? Or both 
? I’m confused.

Please, don’t be angry.

Ally
 

> On 15 Jan 2021, at 22:34, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> Why not assume the wf applies only before the measurement? Or why not 
> withhold judgement on a phenomenon not yet understood? Instead you totally 
> dismiss empirical evidence that no one ever observes a split. AG
> 
> On Friday, January 15, 2021 at 1:18:53 PM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 2:22 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
> 
> > Why do you assume that the initial observer splits after initial trial when 
> > it's not observed? AG 
> 
> For heaven sake haven't you been listening?! Because that is the least 
> bizarre interpretation anybody can think of to explain the utterly bizarre 
> results observed from the two slit experiment. There is just no getting 
> around it, if Many Worlds isn't true then something even stranger must be. 
> 
> 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/2a6bf029-a37a-4049-ab90-0ee889ba9820n%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/5BC6546E-8F24-4D9E-B432-23A92433AB94%40gmail.com.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

2021-01-15 Thread Alan Grayson

Why not assume the wf applies only before the measurement? Or why not 
withhold judgement on a phenomenon not yet understood? Instead you totally 
dismiss empirical evidence that no one ever observes a split. AG

On Friday, January 15, 2021 at 1:18:53 PM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 2:22 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
>
>> *> Why do you assume that the initial observer splits after initial trial 
>> when it's not observed? AG *
>
>
> For heaven sake haven't you been listening?! Because that is the least 
> bizarre interpretation anybody can think of to explain the utterly bizarre 
> results observed from the two slit experiment. There is just no getting 
> around it, if Many Worlds isn't true then something even stranger must be.
>  
>
> 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/2a6bf029-a37a-4049-ab90-0ee889ba9820n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

2021-01-15 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 2:22 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> *> Why do you assume that the initial observer splits after initial trial
> when it's not observed? AG *

For heaven sake haven't you been listening?! Because that is the least
bizarre interpretation anybody can think of to explain the utterly bizarre
results observed from the two slit experiment. There is just no getting
around it, if Many Worlds isn't true then something even stranger must be.

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/CAJPayv0Kx_QtSAREhH%2BCGqEoA27Uuk_fN0Okd1nwS4PXuw1t2g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

2021-01-15 Thread Alan Grayson

Why do you assume that the initial observer splits after initial trial when 
it's not observed? AG 

On Wednesday, January 6, 2021 at 5:28:51 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

> Here a schema:
> [image: image.png]
>
> After 3 experiments, you have *8* worlds... each with the memory of the 
> initial experiment, 4 of the 2nd version A and for of the 2nd version B... 
> etc
>
> Every *worlds* has a past which is linked directly with the previous 
> experiment and to the initial experiment... in each world there is an 
> ensemble of 3 results.
>
> Quentin
>
> Le mer. 6 janv. 2021 à 13:01, Alan Grayson  a écrit :
>
>> I should have been more explicit; since the trials are independent, the 
>> other worlds implied by the MWI for any particular trial, are unrelated to 
>> the other worlds created for any OTHER particular trial. Thus, each other 
>> world has an ensemble with one element, insufficient for the existence of 
>> probabilities. AG
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 6, 2021 at 4:41:57 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 6, 2021 at 3:33:52 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 10:05 PM Alan Grayson  
 wrote:

 >> One world contains an Alan Grayson that sees the electron go left, 
>> another world is absolutely identical in every way except that it 
>> contains 
>> a  Alan Grayson that sees the electron go right. So you tell me, which 
>> of 
>> those 2 worlds is "THIS WORLD"?
>>
>
> *> It's the world where a living being can observe the trials being 
> measured. The other world is in your imagination (if you believe in the 
> MWI). AG *
>

 From that response I take it you have abandoned your attempt to poke 
 logical 
 holes in the Many Worlds Interpretation and instead have resorted to a 
 pure emotional appeal; namely that there must be a fundamental law of 
 physics that says anything Alan Grayson finds to be odd cannot exist, 
 and Alan Grayson finds many Worlds to be odd. Personally I find Many 
 Worlds to be odd too, although it's the least odd of all the quantum 
 interpretations, however I don't think nature cares very much if you or I 
 approve of it or not. From experimentation it's clear to me that if Many 
 Worlds is not true then something even stranger is. 

>>>
>>> I have no idea whatsoever, how you reached your conclusions above. There 
>>> are things called laboratories, where physicists conduct experiments, some 
>>> of which are quantum experiments with probabilistic outcomes. The world in 
>>> which such things exist, I call THIS world. Worlds postulated to exist 
>>> based on the claim that any possible measurement, must be a realized 
>>> measurement in another world, I call OTHER worlds. Those OTHER worlds are 
>>> imagined to exist based on the MWI. These are simple facts. I am not making 
>>> any emotional appeals to anything. The possible oddness of the Cosmos is 
>>> not affirmed or denied here. I agree the Cosmos might be odd, possibly very 
>>> odd, but this has nothing to do with our discussion. The core of my 
>>> argument is that since the trial outcomes in quantum experiments are 
>>> independent of one another, there's no reason to claim that each of the 
>>> OTHER worlds accumulates ensembles, as an ensemble is created in THIS 
>>> world. Without ensembles in those OTHER worlds, the MWI fails to affirm the 
>>> existence of probability in any of those OTHER worlds. AG 
>>>

  See my new list at  Extropolis 
 

 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/55a83617-d49c-403c-a679-02025441ef6fn%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>
>
> -- 
> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy 
> Batty/Rutger Hauer)
>

-- 
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/c34db1ae-a69d-43f8-9470-31aef308b14cn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

2021-01-15 Thread Alan Grayson



On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:36:39 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 4:01 pm, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 3:15:47 PM UTC-7, Pierz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:07:59 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:26:42 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:

> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:42:43 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 8:29:16 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 1:23:11 PM UTC+11 
>>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 4:33:20 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 5:50:29 PM UTC+11 
> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 10:19:59 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 12:09:06 PM UTC+11 
>>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 3:56:51 PM UTC-7 
 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 5:21 PM Alan Grayson <
> agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> *> The MWI doesn't guarantee that these subsequent 
>> measurements, for subsequent horse races say, are occurring in 
>> the SAME 
>> OTHER worlds as trials progress, to get ensembles in those OTHER 
>> worlds. *
>
>  
> I don't know what you mean by "SAME OTHER worlds", the same as 
> what? In one world Alan Grayson remembers having seen the 
> electron go left, 
> in another world Alan Grayson remembers having seen the electron 
> go right, 
> other than that the two worlds are absolutely identical, so which 
> one was 
> the "SAME OTHER world"?
>
> > You seem to avoid the fact that no where does the MWI 
>> guarantee [...]
>
>
> Quantum mechanics is not in the guarantee business, it deals 
> with probability.  
>
> *> I don't think you understand my point, which isn't 
>> complicated. *
>
>
> Yes, your point is very simple indeed, but the word simple 
> can have 2 meanings, one of them is complementary and the 
> other not so much.  
>

 In first trial, the MWI postulates other worlds comes into 
 existence. Same other worlds in second trial? Same other worlds in 
 third 
 trial, etc? Where does the MWI assert these other worlds are the 
 SAME other 
 worlds? Unless it does, you only have ONE measurement in each of 
 these 
 worlds. No probability exists in these other worlds since no 
 ensemble of 
 measurements exist in these other world. AG

>>>  
>>> You grossly misunderstand MWI. There are no "same other" worlds. 
>>> The worlds that arise at each trial are different in precisely one 
>>> way and 
>>> one way only: the eigenvalue recorded for the experiment. The 
>>> different 
>>> eigenvalues will then give rise to a "wave of differentiations" as 
>>> the 
>>> consequences of that singular difference ramifies, causing the 
>>> different 
>>> worlds generated by the original experimental difference to 
>>> multiply. 
>>> "World" really means a unique configuration of the universal wave 
>>> function, 
>>> so two worlds at different trials can't possibly be the "same 
>>> world", and 
>>> yes, there is only one measurement in each.
>>>
>>
>> This is what I have been saying all along! AG
>>
> No it isn't. I agree you have been saying there is only one 
> measurement outcome in each world. However this business about "same 
> other 
> worlds" betrays your lack of comprehension. It's not that MWI 
> "doesn't 
> guarantee" that the the worlds at each trial are the same world. It's 
> that 
> the whole notion of "same other worlds" means nothing in this context 
> and 
> has no bearing on anything. A bit like arguing when we add 1 and 1 
> twice 
> whether we are guaranteed that the ones we add each time are the 
> "SAME 
> ones" at each addition. If mathematics can't guarantee that then how 
> can we 
> be sure the answer is the same? Basically the only answer to that is 
> "WTF?"
>
>>  
>>
>>>

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

2021-01-15 Thread Alan Grayson

No. You're not blocked. I'll try to look at it and give a response. AG

On Friday, January 15, 2021 at 12:48:14 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

> Obviously I'm blocked by AG for whatever reason, because that's what I've 
> been telling him since and got no answer... I even bother to take the time 
> to make a schematics (well a ugly one but still) :D
>
> Le ven. 15 janv. 2021 à 07:36, Pierz Newton-John  a 
> écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 4:01 pm, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 3:15:47 PM UTC-7, Pierz wrote:



 On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:07:59 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:26:42 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:42:43 PM UTC+11 
>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 8:29:16 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>>>
 On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 1:23:11 PM UTC+11 
 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 4:33:20 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 5:50:29 PM UTC+11 
>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 10:19:59 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
>>>


 On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 12:09:06 PM UTC+11 
 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 3:56:51 PM UTC-7 
> johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 5:21 PM Alan Grayson <
>> agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> *> The MWI doesn't guarantee that these subsequent 
>>> measurements, for subsequent horse races say, are occurring in 
>>> the SAME 
>>> OTHER worlds as trials progress, to get ensembles in those 
>>> OTHER worlds. *
>>
>>  
>> I don't know what you mean by "SAME OTHER worlds", the same 
>> as what? In one world Alan Grayson remembers having seen the 
>> electron go 
>> left, in another world Alan Grayson remembers having seen the 
>> electron go 
>> right, other than that the two worlds are absolutely identical, 
>> so which 
>> one was the "SAME OTHER world"?
>>
>> > You seem to avoid the fact that no where does the MWI 
>>> guarantee [...]
>>
>>
>> Quantum mechanics is not in the guarantee business, it deals 
>> with probability.  
>>
>> *> I don't think you understand my point, which isn't 
>>> complicated. *
>>
>>
>> Yes, your point is very simple indeed, but the word simple 
>> can have 2 meanings, one of them is complementary and the 
>> other not so much.  
>>
>
> In first trial, the MWI postulates other worlds comes into 
> existence. Same other worlds in second trial? Same other worlds 
> in third 
> trial, etc? Where does the MWI assert these other worlds are the 
> SAME other 
> worlds? Unless it does, you only have ONE measurement in each of 
> these 
> worlds. No probability exists in these other worlds since no 
> ensemble of 
> measurements exist in these other world. AG
>
  
 You grossly misunderstand MWI. There are no "same other" 
 worlds. The worlds that arise at each trial are different in 
 precisely one 
 way and one way only: the eigenvalue recorded for the experiment. 
 The 
 different eigenvalues will then give rise to a "wave of 
 differentiations" 
 as the consequences of that singular difference ramifies, causing 
 the 
 different worlds generated by the original experimental difference 
 to 
 multiply. "World" really means a unique configuration of the 
 universal wave 
 function, so two worlds at different trials can't possibly be the 
 "same 
 world", and yes, there is only one measurement in each.

>>>
>>> This is what I have been saying all along! AG
>>>
>> No it isn't. I agree you have been saying there is only one 
>> measurement outcome in each world. However this business about "same 
>> other 
>> worlds" betrays your lack of comprehension. It's not that MWI 
>> "doesn't 
>> guarantee" that the the worlds at each trial are the same world. 
>> It's that 
>> the whole notion of "same other worlds"

Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

15 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information