Re: Consciousness

[Richard Ruquist]

Has anyone ever told you that you are controlling or am I the first.
Bruce Greyson has made those claims, not me.
And I do not appreciate your characterizations.
Nobody can tell me what to do.
Richard



On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 8:36 PM, LizR  wrote:

> You're the one putting this forward, presumably you've done some research
> on it, why should I have to duplicate it?
>
> You obviously don't have anything here, I'm sorry I bothered to be open
> minded about it since you're clearly just a charlatan.
>
> On 11 December 2014 at 14:28, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>> You can do your own research.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:15 PM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>> On 11 December 2014 at 11:34, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>>>
>>>> She is at Smith College. Go for it
>>>>
>>>
>>> If that's the only response to a request for peer-reviewed papers, I
>>> think we can say right now that there is almost certainly nothing to any of
>>> this, because it needs lots of research conducted by experts to proved
>>> "extraordinary evidence". If there hasn't been any then it's just, as some
>>> people already said, anecdotal. I'm quite prepared to look at the evidence
>>> with an open mind but if the evidence involves snarky comments then forget
>>> it, we're back in Edgar Owen land.
>>>
>>> Or can you supply the links to suitable papers, as requested?
>>>
>>>  --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Consciousness

[Richard Ruquist]

You can do your own research.

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:15 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 11 December 2014 at 11:34, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>> She is at Smith College. Go for it
>>
>
> If that's the only response to a request for peer-reviewed papers, I think
> we can say right now that there is almost certainly nothing to any of this,
> because it needs lots of research conducted by experts to proved
> "extraordinary evidence". If there hasn't been any then it's just, as some
> people already said, anecdotal. I'm quite prepared to look at the evidence
> with an open mind but if the evidence involves snarky comments then forget
> it, we're back in Edgar Owen land.
>
> Or can you supply the links to suitable papers, as requested?
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Consciousness

[Richard Ruquist]

She is at Smith College. Go for it

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 5:00 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 10 December 2014 at 20:00, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>> That's the slide I meant. The first item has to do with the (mostly )
>> elderly who get serious dementia
>> and essentially cannot communicate. They speak nonsense or not at all.
>>
>> From autopsies after they die their brains are established to be almost
>> completely destroyed.
>> Yet just before they die, from minutes to a day or two,
>> their communication is normal or even sometimes above normal.
>>
>> This is taken as evidence that consciousness can exist without a brain.
>> In fact, during dementia it is thought that the decaying brain just gets
>> in the way.
>>
>> A more remarkable case is that of a HS honor student (130 IQ) who got a
>> brain injury in a auto accident.
>> The xray of her head revealed that she only has a brain stem- no higher
>> order components.
>>
>> Similarly some people with cranial fluid in place of a brain (except for
>> the brain stem) are high functioning.
>> Prof. Greyson showed an xray of such a person's head compared to an
>> ordinary brain.
>>
>> This all sounds rather extraordinary, and as they say "extraordinary
> claims require extraordinary proof" - I have found in the past that what
> looked like compelling evidence for something extraordinary has later been
> shown to be not quite as good as it appeared (I should never have read
> James Randi on the Cottingley fairies...)
>
> So, with all due respect, I would like to know if there are peer-reviewed
> papers by experts in the relevant fields, which also make these claims? The
> IQ 130 student, who is presumably still around to be studied, might be a
> good place to start. If she really is what is being claimed that would seem
> to be very strong evidence that high-functioning consciousness can exist in
> a much reduced brain, and maybe even without one.
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: real A.I.

[Richard Ruquist]

I do not doubt that increased CO2 in the atm causes global warming
and that nowadays much of it comes from burning fossil fuels.

Yet my opinion of the Vostok ice core data is that
when global temperatures got to their present levels,
rapid global warming abruptly turned into less rapid global cooling
and eventual descent into another ice age.

I believe the mechanism is that global warming makes the jet stream more
unstable.
When I was young some 50-60 years ago,
the jet stream essentially went directly across the USA.
Now it dips down into Texas and seemingly stabilizes there
as it just fits the continental USA. The resulting snow cover in the winter
changes the earth's albedo and may be the causal factor
in a flip from warming to cooling.

I just heard a week or so ago on NPR that Siberia is experiencing record
snowfalls.
So apparently stabilization of the jet stream over the USA, if that is
indeed true,
may stabilize it across the entire globe. Time will tell.

The Republicans should be willing to pay me good money for such a theory.
But I hate what they are doing to the USA so much
that I hope you all will keep this possibility a secret.

Richard

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 11:58 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/9/2014 7:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> ...
>
>  As I said, I haven't developed a strong opinion in regards to
> anthropogenic global warming, so I certainly wouldn't label myself a
> "climate change denier" though perhaps some would take the fact that my
> mind is not settled as sufficient reason to put me in that bucket. However,
> there are some reasons that I remain unconvinced. Among them:
>
>  1. The fact that the question is so heavily politicized and that there
> is so much money involved naturally arouses my suspicion (must take every
> news article and report with a grain of salt unlike say, a paper on pure
> number theory)
>
>
> The money is essentially all on the side of the fossil fuel industry.
> Nobody gets rich being a serious climatologist.
>
>   2. Lack of consensus on what the effects will be: in the 1970s the fear
> was global cooling,
>
>
> There was never such "fear".  It was a popular book based on the cyclic
> ice ages that "predicted" a new ice-age (eventually).  It has been picked
> up as by AGW deniers as proof that climatologists don't know anything.
> http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
>
> http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2008/11/10/203320/killing-the-myth-of-the-1970s-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/
>
>in the 1990s it was global warming, and when neither long-term trend
> established itself it has since become climate change and extreme whether,
> but statistical studies have found no statistically abnormal increase in
> extreme weather events.
>
>
> Why cherry pick extreme weather as the indicator?  There's plenty of
> empirical evidence for global warming, based on the most cutting edge
> statistical analysis and data and conducted by a former AGW skeptic.
> http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
>
>   3. Failure of models: Early climate models projected an increase in
> global temperatures over the last 10 years, but those increases never
> materialized.
>
>
> Ten years is very short in climate terms.  And global warming doesn't
> necessarily imply global temperature increase.  A lot of ice can melt
> without the temperature increasing.
> http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/has-global-warming-stopped.pdf
>
>   (As a side-note, I used to find the existence of models which could
> accurately follow past temperature changes used to be extremely convincing
> with regards to the dangers of global warming, but years later I found
> after experimenting with developing currency trading algorithms that
> through training, genetic algorithms, etc. that it was relatively easy to
> create models that were exceptionally good at reproducing past trends, yet
> they utterly failed to have any predictive power. After this experience, I
> came to realize that generating models that match a given trend is easy,
> but that is no indication of the model's legitimacy)
>
>
> So you're accusing climate scientists of using adaptive curve fitting
> algorithms, rather than physics based models?  And the simple calculations
> of Arrhenius in 1890 no longer apply?
>
>   4. Recent exposes on the corner cutting and general bad practices of
> climatologists involved in developing reports for policy makers.
>
>
> What are these "bad practices"?  The "exposes" I've read have been cheap
> nit-picking by fossil fuel industry flacks.
>
>
>
>  If human CO2 emissions are changing the climate, does that mean we
> should adopt a Kyoto (or similar) proposal? This is even less clear. This
> would require all of the following to be true:
>
>
> Why not add:
> 1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
> 2. Burning fossil fuel puts CO2 into the air.
> 3. Human burning of fossil fuel has almost doubled atmospheric CO2 - even
> though about half of that produced has been absorbed in the oceans.
>
>
>

Re: Consciousness

[Richard Ruquist]

That's the slide I meant. The first item has to do with the (mostly )
elderly who get serious dementia
and essentially cannot communicate. They speak nonsense or not at all.

>From autopsies after they die their brains are established to be almost
completely destroyed.
Yet just before they die, from minutes to a day or two,
their communication is normal or even sometimes above normal.

This is taken as evidence that consciousness can exist without a brain.
In fact, during dementia it is thought that the decaying brain just gets in
the way.

A more remarkable case is that of a HS honor student (130 IQ) who got a
brain injury in a auto accident.
The xray of her head revealed that she only has a brain stem- no higher
order components.

Similarly some people with cranial fluid in place of a brain (except for
the brain stem) are high functioning.
Prof. Greyson showed an xray of such a person's head compared to an
ordinary brain.

I posted this talk on 3 other lists, 2 of which contain posters that only
accept a materialistic reality.
On one, a poster said that all of the evidence presented was purely
anecdotal.
On the 2nd a poster linked me to an article claiming that brain stems alone
manifested low-grade consciousness.
When I mentioned the 130 IQ HS girl- he said that was impossible and
questioned the veracity of the U. of Virginia.

The 3rd list contains posters who already believe that consciousness can
exist outside the brain.
It was like preaching to the choir. They believe in reincarnation as well
as a hierarchy of consciousnesses-
somewhat like a spiritual MWI.
Richard

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 10:29 PM, LizR  wrote:

> I've been looking for the first slide, but can't find it - can you give me
> the time when it appears?
>
> Actually I may have found it - not the first, but around 18 minutes in -
> it says:
>
> Consciousness without a brain
>
> * Deathbed recovery of lost consciousness
>
> * Complex consciousness with minimal brain
>
> * Near-death experiences
>
> * Memories of a past life
>
> I know what the last 3 points mean, at least, but I'm not sure about the
> first one.
>
> (I also don't know of any evidence that NDEs are more that the brain
> shutting down, as described by Susan Blackmore in "Dying to live".)
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Consciousness

[Richard Ruquist]

Well spuddy, I do not think they are lying. However, what aspect of his
talk involves the paranormal?
Richard

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 6:55 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Obviously, you find the UV claims, trustworthy, Richard? Specifically, the
> truth could be determined by getting data that has no other explanation,
> other than paranormal. I know there was not any hits with Sam Parnia's
> AWARE study.
>
> An hour long discussion of the scientific findings of the U of Virginia
> that consciousness can exist outside of the brain.
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: LizR 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Tue, Dec 9, 2014 6:04 pm
> Subject: Re: Consciousness
>
>  Sounds interesting. I wish I had an hour to watch it. I don't suppose
> there's a summary? :-)
>
> On 10 December 2014 at 03:36, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: richard ruquist 
>> Date: Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 9:26 AM
>> Subject: Consciousness
>> To: Swines , "
>> achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com" <
>> achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com>, Richard Ruquist <
>> yann...@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yosn_GHYiR4&feature=youtu.be
>>
>>  An hour long discussion of the scientific findings of the U of Virginia
>> that consciousness can exist outside of the brain.
>>
>>
>>
>>   --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Consciousness

[Richard Ruquist]

Liz,

His first slide summarizes to entire talk. The rest are examples and
elaboration.
Richard

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 6:03 PM, LizR  wrote:

> Sounds interesting. I wish I had an hour to watch it. I don't suppose
> there's a summary? :-)
>
> On 10 December 2014 at 03:36, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: richard ruquist 
>> Date: Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 9:26 AM
>> Subject: Consciousness
>> To: Swines , "
>> achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com" <
>> achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com>, Richard Ruquist <
>> yann...@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yosn_GHYiR4&feature=youtu.be
>>
>> An hour long discussion of the scientific findings of the U of Virginia
>> that consciousness can exist outside of the brain.
>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Fwd: Consciousness

[Richard Ruquist]

-- Forwarded message --
From: richard ruquist 
Date: Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 9:26 AM
Subject: Consciousness
To: Swines , "
achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com" <
achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com>, Richard Ruquist 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yosn_GHYiR4&feature=youtu.be

An hour long discussion of the scientific findings of the U of Virginia
that consciousness can exist outside of the brain.

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

Re: real A.I.

[Richard Ruquist]

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Hi Richard,
>
>
>
> On 07 Dec 2014, at 15:16, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
> You seem to be arguing that the total energy in the multiverse is a
> constant.
> Is that so?
>
>
>
> I think indeed, assuming QM (without collapse),  that the total energy of
> the multiverse is constant, and even equal to zero. Cf DeWitt-Wheeler
> equation: H = 0.
>
> Have you read Wilczek short paper referred to by Bruce Kellett?
>
> http://frankwilczek.com/2013/multiverseEnergy01.pdf
>
> It explains why QM implies, at least formally, why we should not add the
> energy of the different terms in the superposition.
>

Yes, and I thought it was a snooker. He is saying that E1 and E2 are both
less than E=E1+E2 where E is the original energy of the waves in the
incident branch.

Let's say the original branch contained one photon of frequency E/h. Then
the two resulting branches contain photons of E1/h and E2/h respectively so
that two photons of differing frequencies result. That is contrary to
experimental results as well as common sense.
Richard.


> That seems obvious to me. We never consider that a particle going through
> two slits needs the doubling of its energy. If that was the case, a quantum
> computer solving big factorization by using Shor algorithm would need more
> energy than the one available in the observable universe.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> Richard
>
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 06 Dec 2014, at 12:59, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 3:19 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 05 Dec 2014, at 20:04, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>>
>>> What I want to know is if anyone takes conservation of energy seriously?
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes. Quantum mechanics without collapse does not violate the
>>> conservation of energy. You just cannot sum up the energy in the different
>>> branch of the superposition. If you do, just the two slits experiment would
>>> violate energy conservation, but the math shows otherwise.
>>> Similarly thanks to the quantization modal principle which is a theorem
>>> in the material modalities (hypostases) we have good reason that the
>>> physics extracted from comp will conserve energy, and the probabilities.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Please explain how you cannot sum all the energies in each branch.
>>
>>
>> Because QM's equation allows only interference between the branch, not
>> physical interaction. You can formally add the energy of course, but that
>> sum of energy is not available in any branches. According to Weinberg, that
>> would be the case if the SWE was slightly delinearize. Strict linearity
>> avoids all physical or observable mixture of the components of the
>> universal wave, making such a sum of energy in different branches of the
>> wave non physical. An hydrogen atom with an electron in a superposed state
>> of two level of energy has not an energy being the sum of the two energies.
>> You don't need that sum of energy to put the electron is such a state. the
>> superposition of the incoming photon will be enough.
>> I might think of a more formal treatment of this.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:49 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>>
>>>>  On 12/5/2014 8:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:06 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/4/2014 8:05 PM, LizR wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect that Bruno is differentiating physical existence from
>>>>>> primary existence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  What's the difference?  Isn't physical existence the paradigmatic
>>>>> case? the example we point to when asked to define "exits"?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Not wanting to bypass Bruno's more sophisticated explanations, I tend
>>>> to equate "physical existence" with the idea of something existing
>>>> independently of an observer. Or, to put it another way, taking 3p reality
>>>> seriously. No?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure.  Does anyone not take it seriously - I mean anyone outside a
>>>> mental hospital?
>>>>
>>>> Brent
>>>>
>

Re: real A.I.

[Richard Ruquist]

Bruno,

You seem to be arguing that the total energy in the multiverse is a
constant.
Is that so?
Richard

On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 06 Dec 2014, at 12:59, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 3:19 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 05 Dec 2014, at 20:04, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>> What I want to know is if anyone takes conservation of energy seriously?
>>
>>
>> Yes. Quantum mechanics without collapse does not violate the conservation
>> of energy. You just cannot sum up the energy in the different branch of the
>> superposition. If you do, just the two slits experiment would violate
>> energy conservation, but the math shows otherwise.
>> Similarly thanks to the quantization modal principle which is a theorem
>> in the material modalities (hypostases) we have good reason that the
>> physics extracted from comp will conserve energy, and the probabilities.
>>
>
>
> Please explain how you cannot sum all the energies in each branch.
>
>
> Because QM's equation allows only interference between the branch, not
> physical interaction. You can formally add the energy of course, but that
> sum of energy is not available in any branches. According to Weinberg, that
> would be the case if the SWE was slightly delinearize. Strict linearity
> avoids all physical or observable mixture of the components of the
> universal wave, making such a sum of energy in different branches of the
> wave non physical. An hydrogen atom with an electron in a superposed state
> of two level of energy has not an energy being the sum of the two energies.
> You don't need that sum of energy to put the electron is such a state. the
> superposition of the incoming photon will be enough.
> I might think of a more formal treatment of this.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> Richard
>
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:49 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>  On 12/5/2014 8:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:06 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/4/2014 8:05 PM, LizR wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I suspect that Bruno is differentiating physical existence from
>>>>> primary existence.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  What's the difference?  Isn't physical existence the paradigmatic
>>>> case? the example we point to when asked to define "exits"?
>>>>
>>>
>>>  Not wanting to bypass Bruno's more sophisticated explanations, I tend
>>> to equate "physical existence" with the idea of something existing
>>> independently of an observer. Or, to put it another way, taking 3p reality
>>> seriously. No?
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure.  Does anyone not take it seriously - I mean anyone outside a
>>> mental hospital?
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are su

Re: real A.I.

[Richard Ruquist]

On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 3:19 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 05 Dec 2014, at 20:04, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> What I want to know is if anyone takes conservation of energy seriously?
>
>
> Yes. Quantum mechanics without collapse does not violate the conservation
> of energy. You just cannot sum up the energy in the different branch of the
> superposition. If you do, just the two slits experiment would violate
> energy conservation, but the math shows otherwise.
> Similarly thanks to the quantization modal principle which is a theorem in
> the material modalities (hypostases) we have good reason that the physics
> extracted from comp will conserve energy, and the probabilities.
>


Please explain how you cannot sum all the energies in each branch.
Richard

>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:49 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 12/5/2014 8:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:06 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/4/2014 8:05 PM, LizR wrote:
>>>
>>>> I suspect that Bruno is differentiating physical existence from primary
>>>> existence.
>>>>
>>>
>>>  What's the difference?  Isn't physical existence the paradigmatic case?
>>> the example we point to when asked to define "exits"?
>>>
>>
>>  Not wanting to bypass Bruno's more sophisticated explanations, I tend
>> to equate "physical existence" with the idea of something existing
>> independently of an observer. Or, to put it another way, taking 3p reality
>> seriously. No?
>>
>>
>> Sure.  Does anyone not take it seriously - I mean anyone outside a mental
>> hospital?
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: real A.I.

[Richard Ruquist]

What I want to know is if anyone takes conservation of energy seriously?

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:49 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/5/2014 8:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:06 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>> On 12/4/2014 8:05 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>> I suspect that Bruno is differentiating physical existence from primary
>>> existence.
>>>
>>
>>  What's the difference?  Isn't physical existence the paradigmatic case?
>> the example we point to when asked to define "exits"?
>>
>
>  Not wanting to bypass Bruno's more sophisticated explanations, I tend to
> equate "physical existence" with the idea of something existing
> independently of an observer. Or, to put it another way, taking 3p reality
> seriously. No?
>
>
> Sure.  Does anyone not take it seriously - I mean anyone outside a mental
> hospital?
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

[Richard Ruquist]

Zibby,

They may be interested, but they cannot publish such an interest and put
their careers at risk.
It is only emeritus types like myself that can put such speculations in
print.
What they can publish is the math behind the limited conclusion.
David Deutsch is the exception.

Zappy

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:56 PM,  wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, December 1, 2014 4:24:38 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:
>>
>> That is exactly the same kind of correlation that Motl, Gharibyon, Penna
>> and I are talking about.
>> It is a form of cosmic entanglement.
>>
>
> how do we know when an idea like cosmic entanglement is a good scientific
> idea or a catch-all explanation?
>
>>
>> However, if you recall I extrapolated from G&P's paper that black holes
>> must be intelligent to be monogamous
>>
>
> I remember you saying that. And maybe I think there's something going
> on there as well. But then, the same problem just comes back as mentioned
> at the top. What is the explanation of that abstract landscape, now to
> include 'intelligent' - presumably consciousblack holes? What are they
> talking about? Why are they interested in that topic? How does that get
> inferred from an abstract theory, and how much else does that theory
> explain on that abstract landscape? How much is predicted by that theory
> before it comes up empirically?
>
>
>> And in a post to Bruno I speculated the particle wave collapse may work
>> on the same basis.
>>
>
> same response as above
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

[Richard Ruquist]

That is exactly the same kind of correlation that Motl, Gharibyon, Penna
and I are talking about.
It is a form of cosmic entanglement.

However, if you recall I extrapolated from G&P's paper that black holes
must be intelligent to be monogamus.
And in a post to Bruno I speculated the particle wave collapse may work on
the same basis.

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 10:51 PM,  wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:30:05 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:
>>
>> I have read that reference. It is obvious that you have not.
>> But then almost everything you post here is baloney.
>> So it may not matter if you read the paper or not.
>> Richard
>>
>
> I read and we even exchanged about it. But there are other kinds of
> correlation showing up on a regular basis now. Such as this:
> http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/11/chile-telescope-finds-mysterious-25.html
>
> I don't think the data driving wormhole speculation correlates with the
> data driving the above correlation, for example. So for that reason it
> isn't a case of wormholes can explain all the correlations.
>
> obviously 'wormholes' are not settled science in of themselves, and for
> that reason they can explain as much as you like. Your likes probably
> exceed mine.
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

[Richard Ruquist]

I have read that reference. It is obvious that you have not.
But then almost everything you post here is baloney.
So it may not matter if you read the paper or not.
Richard

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 9:25 PM,  wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:14:33 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:
>>
>> I posted a reference here that suggested how distant black holes could
>> become correlated.
>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf
>>
>
> I saw / have seen the argument...always read things you reference if see
> them. What I would say is that each one of these emergent observations
> may well have one or more potentially viable explanation. Those that don't,
> have one or more in the future yet to come, let's allow.
>
> Call each one a little observation in some abstract landscape that allows
> each one to be in its own single place in the sky (abstract landscape
> because some involve correlations of distant objects)
>
> So there's an observed cosmology on this abstract landscape of all these
> different locally one off phenomena. The problem with the explanations of
> each one, then becomes whether two adjacent objects can be explained
> together in such a way that the general explanation of both, independently
> derives the two local explanations.
>
> Then three together, then a cluster, then the whole sky.
>
> At some point objects like "the historic cosmological view" need to be
> included. And "the big bang". And then more widely things like "stable
> enduring structure" and "biological life".
>
> The question is, how much of that abstract sky is being explained all
> together.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

[Richard Ruquist]

I posted a reference here that suggested how distant black holes could
become correlated.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf
Richard

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 9:07 PM,  wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, December 1, 2014 1:48:35 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> OK, I'm just curious to knowI don't know what plausible answers were
>> provided, I don't recall any that addressed this point. Maybe I missed
>> them, I don't have a lot of time to spend on this forum (or any forum...)
>>
>> I suppose if the amount of DM being annihilated is very small relative to
>> the mass of a galaxy we wouldn't see any noticeable effect. Is it supposed
>> to be relatively negligible?
>>
>
> Liz - I've got to admit I've only just now seen your point in
> terms of your actual line of inference. You are absolutely right of
> course. How can a piece of data involve a dark energy / dark matter
> interplay, with a calculated implication for the expansion of the universe,
> if the same data cannot at least say something about smaller scales. You
> are 100% in the logic IMHO.
>
> I'm sorry I didn't see it because I was thinking from a different angle.
> That being a person piece of effort  (unpublished) that expects the result.
> Because of that I was trying to read you through the prism of my own inner
> madness.
>
> But you're right. It isn't clear that Bruno or Bruce or anyone else
> provide a response from the context you set up, which looks correct to me.
>
> If you are interested, Lubos Motl does a piece on this. I just looked on
> his site but can't see it. But I definitely saw it there.
>
> Motl isn't to everyone's taste...not even mine...I wouldn't be able to
> tolerate his views about climate science I shouldn't think. But he's a
> brilliant guy all the same and no one disputes that much is true. He's also
> an independent voice in terms of science. He's obviously not independent of
> his own personality or personal biases.
>
> his view was fairly sceptical. Not the original science, but the media
> distortion as he saw it. It's worth reading. Don't worry if you can't
> follow everything, hardly anyone can. I don't have Motl's skills and
> training or intellect, and rarely understand his whole point. Still find it
> worthwhile.
>
> look for it here if you are keen http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/
>
> In terms of my bit on the side workfor me it's very much linked to a
> lot of other findings that are now beginning to show up everywhere at the
> frontiers of cosmology. A few of them also treated by Motl (he doesn't shy
> away even when he obviously doesn't have a strong answer).
>
> GRB's destroying 90's of life. Blackhole's with 'wormholes' between them.
> Blackhole's with 'spooky' alignments despite being at opposite ends of the
> universe. Those are all part of the same thing as the topic here, for me.
> Those three I mention because they are all blogs he's done, which you might
> look at even if you can't find the one in question re here.
>
>
>
> But then again, who is.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Quantum Mechanics Violation of the Second Law

[Richard Ruquist]

John,

Experimental results at several high-energy colliders suggest that at some
point in the big bang the universe was a quark-gluon plasma, which despite
it's high energy, is a BEC where all the particles share the same wave
function- so they say. It seems to me that if all particles in the universe
share the same wave function, that must be a state of very low entropy. I
invite discussion on whether my thinking is correct.
Richard

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:00 AM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 4:29 PM, George  wrote:
>
>  > As I have
>> explained in previous posts, it is my opinion that Loschmidt was wrong in
>> thinking that a Maxwellian gas column could power a perpetual motion
>> machine of the Second kind which would decrease in entropy in an isolated
>> system.
>>
>
> Yes, Loschmidt was wrong about that.
>
> > Loschmidt was wrong with respect to the direction of time. In summary:
>> entropy can decrease but time always flows forward.
>>
>
> Loschmidt said the link between the second law and time can explain why
> entropy will be higher tomorrow than today, but it can't explain why it was
> lower yesterday than today. And Loschmidt was quite right about that, you
> have to take initial conditions into consideration to explain that. In
> retrospect this shouldn't have been surprising, even in a Newtonian world
> the laws of physics alone are NEVER enough to figure out what a physical
> system will do tomorrow or did yesterday, you also have to know exactly
> what state the system was in for at least one moment in time before
> yesterday. Only then can you use the laws of physics to figure out how the
> system will evolve.
>
> > His argument was that if the laws of physics are perfectly reversible,
>> then entropy is just as likely to increase as to decrease.
>>
>
> No, it would be far worse than 50/50. His argument was that even if the
> laws of physics were perfectly reversible entropy would still almost
> certainly increase because there are astronomical to the astronomical power
> more ways to be disorganized than organized, so the chances are
> overwhelming that yesterday, the state that produced the state that things
> are in today, was one of those EXTREMELY numerous states. But nobody really
> thinks that entropy decreased between yesterday and today; the thing that
> saves us from this paradox is initial conditions, the universe must have
> started out in a very very low entropy state and has been winding down ever
> since.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[Richard Ruquist]

On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Richard,
>
> On 28 Nov 2014, at 19:19, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> It occurred to me that if consciousness is entirely classical- no quantum
> effects- then perhaps consciousness on occurs in one world. Or in general
> if most natural processes are classical, then we are mostly in one world,
> maybe with a little fuzziness.
>
>
> Classical, or quantum, will not change the fact that we must sum up on all
> computations occurring in arithmetic.
>

I can understand the need for summation from the Many Histories (Feynman)
quantum theory.
But Bruno, I wonder why you say it is necessary. Does the summation
requirement come from the arithmetic or the logic,
or some other principle?



> There is no quantum cloning (in arithmetic or in some quantum reality),
> but there is still multiple preparation of the states, both in arithmetic
> and in some possible quantum reality.
>
> Normally the quantum aspect of nature is due to the inside or internal
> points of view in arithmetic, but of course this must be continually
> verified. The verifications done so far confirm this.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Richard
>
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:37 AM, John Clark  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 4:43 AM,  wrote:
>>
>> > Let's say there are two individuals, one seems to be normal in that
>>> there is no history of injuries to the head. While the other individual
>>> fell off a tricycle and ended up hospitalized with a head injury. Now let's
>>> jump into the shoes of objective reality.
>>>
>>
>> OK but remember you said "objective reality", Evolution can't detect
>> subjective reality any better than we can. Just like us Evolution can see
>> actions but it can't see intentions.  And the more intelligent a animal's
>> actions are the more likely it is that its genes get passed into the next
>> generation.
>>
>> > we happen to know the efficiency of the conscious experience and its
>>> delivery has been negatively impacted.
>>>
>>
>> And the only way you or Evolution could have "happened to know" that is
>> if you observed a impairment in intelligent actions and made a deduction
>> from that using a theory, the theory being that intelligence implies
>> consciousness. A century ago, long before the invention of the computer,
>> this theory would have been completely uncontroversial, and even today
>> everybody, even the most anti-AI people on this list, use this theory every
>> single hour of their waking lives; the only time they don't use it is when
>> they're talking philosophy on the internet because they just don't like the
>> idea of a sentient AI. So now all of a sudden the
>> intelligence/consciousness link is controversial.
>>
>> I say we should look at the facts of the universe the way they are not
>> the way we wish they were.
>>
>> > Let's say this exhibits more strongly in certain activities
>>>
>>
>> If that is possible (and although I can't prove it I believe that it is)
>> then the Turing Test works not only for intelligence but for consciousness
>> too.
>>
>>
>>> > Natural selection will favour the individual that does not have the
>>> efficiency shortfall in consciousness and its delivery.
>>>
>>
>> Natural selection doesn't give a damn about consciousness, how could it
>> if it can't even see it? And yet I know with 100% certainty that Evolution
>> did somehow manage to produce consciousness at least once and probably
>> trillions of times. How can that be? The only explanation is that
>> consciousness is a spandrel, the unavoidable byproduct of intelligence.
>>
>>
>>> > John you need a strong answer to this.
>>>
>>
>> If your argument is valid then you are not conscious, if your argument is
>> not valid then you are conscious.  Now ask yourself if you are conscious or
>> not and then ask yourself who won the argument. Strong enough?
>>
>>   John K Clark
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[Richard Ruquist]

It may just be herding instinct or projection on my part,
but it seems that my chickens are more intelligent
as a group than individually.

I attribute that to a group mind due to entanglement
in a mind/matter duality.
Richard

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Kim Jones  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> On 29 Nov 2014, at 2:42 am, John Clark  wrote:
>
> Kim Jones:
>
> >> Yes but tell me of the examples you have found of Evolution producing
>>> intelligence without consciousness.
>>>
>>
>> > iPhones. Smart fridges. Self-driving cars. Computers. Space probes etc.
>> etc.
>>
>
> If you believe all these things are smart then fine,
>
>
>
> "Smart" I take to mean "highly competent in a way that a human can
> understand and benefit from". I don't think this exhausts the possibilities
> of being smart. My iPad exists relative to me on the level of a trusted
> slave-labourer. When Siri asks me to pay her for the service of finding a
> great Vietnamese restaurant within walking distance, I will attribute
> consciousness to her - given that Apple isn't pulling my leg somehow.
>
>
>
>
> but what makes you think they're not conscious?
>
>
>
> They may well be. I can certainly hold that thought in my mind and give it
> good consideration. To me this question exists on much the same level as
> "have extraterrestrials visited the Earth?" Well it's entirely possible,
> but highly improbable given the evidence available. It's also possible that
> we haven't seen anything like all of the evidence for or against that yet.
> I recently read somewhere that Google engineers have admitted that Google
> now does things they themselves have not directly authorised nor fully
> understand the need for. That, if true, is super-smart. And just a little
> scary. If something as autonomous as that is happening without an ego or an
> experiencing self observing itself doing these things then we have already
> eliminated the "need" for consciousness in the MV. In fact there is
> precisely NO need for consciousness at all if intelligence (IQ =
> horsepower; grunt of the engine) alone is enough to invent a self-driving
> car or an orbital space station. Yet, we do have consciousness - whether we
> "need" it or not. This, to my mind leads straight to the mind-body problem
> that you seem eternally ready to deny. Intelligence is like the colour of
> your eyes or your height or the dimensions of your schwannstücker. It's
> fixed and immutable. You have an engine upstairs of a certain horsepower,
> that's all. Can't change that. Intelligence is more like low-level
> consciousness, without Löbianity. Still, this is immensely effective and
> powerful. Ant colonies. Forests. Bee hives. Corporations. Flying cars. All
> hugely intelligent and adapted to the environment in which they arose.
> Conscious? Could be, could be. Basically, I am undecided on that. Anyone
> who is "decided on that" on the basis of available evidence has fallen
> headlong into the Intelligence Trap.
>
>
>
> When Evolution made information processing devices it found it was much
> much easier to produce emotion than intelligence,
>
>
>
> Not really. Emotion is a very central part of intelligence. Evolution
> produced intelligence which is absolutely one hundred per cent tethered to
> emotions.
>
> It works like this: emotions are the qualia. Qualia are events. A
> non-conscious subject cannot differentiate events happening "inside" from
> events happening "outside". That somewhat unnecessary distinction requires
> consciousness. An amoeba simply reacts to events, and learns strategies for
> survival from them. That's intelligence.
>
>
>
> so why in the world would we find the exact opposite to be true when we
> make the same sort of thing?
>
>
>
> Because intelligence is easy to produce. Emotions are hard to produce.
> It's exactly the opposite of what you are saying. Evolution always produces
> intelligence, even when it delegates the evolutionary process to the
> accelerated-intelligent entities (us) and there appears to be no end to how
> far intelligence can evolve. If Google becomes any more competent I think
> they should stick it in the White House and let it run the planet for us
> while we all romp naked through the heather and smell the wildflowers...and
> other bizarre behaviour of conscious beings. You are definitely right when
> you say that evolution cares not a fig about consciousness. Evolution is
> not itself an experiential subject of any sort, so that's hardly
> surprising.  Evolution is the name given by conscious beings to a rhythmic,
> harmonic process of adaptation observed happening over time. "Evolution"
> means simply "things persist or they don't, given their behaviour."
> Consciousness would then fit in as a new kind of adaptive behaviour - from
> evolution's perspective.
>
>
> > Evolution is supposed to be "the only game in town"
>>
>
> I don't know who you're quoting but it's not me, and it's not true, at
> least not anymore.
>
>
>
> PZ Meyers, Larry Krauss, Dic

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

[Richard Ruquist]

I have wondered if space is expanding by adding on more space, keeping the
space of say our galaxy intact.
Or is the actual space within our galaxy getting bigger, along with each of
us.
And if the latter, how would we know.?
Richard

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> LizR wrote:
>
>> The point is that galaxies should be expanding in relation to bound
>> systems like stars and the solar system, in a similar manner to the
>> universe though for a different reason (so almost certainly not at the same
>> rate). And that should be visible as we look back in time. So it's an acid
>> test for this whole theory ... unless I screwed up, of course, which is why
>> I was hoping people would comment a bit more cogently than the earlier
>> reply I got (not from you)
>>
>
> It is not at all clear what you are talking about. When you delete all
> context your point becomes obscured.
>
> Why the distinction between galaxies and other bound states? Galaxies and
> clusters of galaxies are as much gravitationally bound states as stars and
> solar systems. I don't understand why you should expect them to expand,
> unless dark matter is decaying and radiating energy out of the system. This
> is not happening at any noticeable rate, so what's the theory in question?
>
> Bruce
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[Richard Ruquist]

Bruno,

It occurred to me that if consciousness is entirely classical- no quantum
effects- then perhaps consciousness on occurs in one world. Or in general
if most natural processes are classical, then we are mostly in one world,
maybe with a little fuzziness.
Richard

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:37 AM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 4:43 AM,  wrote:
>
> > Let's say there are two individuals, one seems to be normal in that
>> there is no history of injuries to the head. While the other individual
>> fell off a tricycle and ended up hospitalized with a head injury. Now let's
>> jump into the shoes of objective reality.
>>
>
> OK but remember you said "objective reality", Evolution can't detect
> subjective reality any better than we can. Just like us Evolution can see
> actions but it can't see intentions.  And the more intelligent a animal's
> actions are the more likely it is that its genes get passed into the next
> generation.
>
> > we happen to know the efficiency of the conscious experience and its
>> delivery has been negatively impacted.
>>
>
> And the only way you or Evolution could have "happened to know" that is if
> you observed a impairment in intelligent actions and made a deduction from
> that using a theory, the theory being that intelligence implies
> consciousness. A century ago, long before the invention of the computer,
> this theory would have been completely uncontroversial, and even today
> everybody, even the most anti-AI people on this list, use this theory every
> single hour of their waking lives; the only time they don't use it is when
> they're talking philosophy on the internet because they just don't like the
> idea of a sentient AI. So now all of a sudden the
> intelligence/consciousness link is controversial.
>
> I say we should look at the facts of the universe the way they are not the
> way we wish they were.
>
> > Let's say this exhibits more strongly in certain activities
>>
>
> If that is possible (and although I can't prove it I believe that it is)
> then the Turing Test works not only for intelligence but for consciousness
> too.
>
>
>> > Natural selection will favour the individual that does not have the
>> efficiency shortfall in consciousness and its delivery.
>>
>
> Natural selection doesn't give a damn about consciousness, how could it if
> it can't even see it? And yet I know with 100% certainty that Evolution did
> somehow manage to produce consciousness at least once and probably
> trillions of times. How can that be? The only explanation is that
> consciousness is a spandrel, the unavoidable byproduct of intelligence.
>
>
>> > John you need a strong answer to this.
>>
>
> If your argument is valid then you are not conscious, if your argument is
> not valid then you are conscious.  Now ask yourself if you are conscious or
> not and then ask yourself who won the argument. Strong enough?
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[Richard Ruquist]

Turns out that I do not understand it either.
The pinhole thought experiment should decrease the coherent photons
by a factor of 2 regardless of whether the incoherent photons
are in separate branches or not.
So the result is the same for MWI and wave collapse.
Richard

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 25 Nov 2014, at 17:54, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 24 Nov 2014, at 16:58, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Bruno Marchal 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 23 Nov 2014, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Bruno:  I doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two
>>>> slits
>>>>
>>>> Richard: You should be ashamed
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's hardly an argument.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Einstein already understood that if the collapse was a physical
>>>> phenomenon, and if special relativity was correct, then locality would make
>>>> a wave possibly collapse on two different eigenvector, like sometimes
>>>> finding literally the photon going in both hole. In that case, the energy
>>>> would be double, and the schroedinger "diffusion" of the wave could be used
>>>> to ... create energy. A quantum perpetual machine could be constructed,
>>>> and, pace George Levy, but following John Clark's quote of Eddington, we
>>>> can stop here ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes. I like Einstein's single pinhole thought experiment the best. The
>>> incident photon spreads in spherical waves beyond the hole from ray optics.
>>> So if waves could carry energy, the energy density would  drop by 1/r^2
>>> where r is distance from the hole.
>>> If we wrap the experiment with a spherical detector sheet, the energy
>>> density incident on the sheet would be a constant across the spherical
>>> sheet and the amount incident on any detector would be a fraction of the
>>> photon energy. So there is not enough energy incident on any detector to
>>> make a photon of the original energy. That's classical thinking and it is
>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at the same
>>> energy and frequency as the original photon but in a different world. So
>>> the total energy in the multiverse will locally have increased by the
>>> number of detectors times the photon energy. The only way to conserve
>>> energy is to detect only one photon of the same energy and frequency as the
>>> original photon.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ... or the conservation of energy is something which has to be accounted
>>> in branches, not in the multiverse.
>>>
>>
>> Fine as long as the input energy in each branch is normalized by the
>> quantum probabilities
>>
>>
>> No, the conservation of energy is global, and should be statistically
>> verified in the normal (non Harry-Potter-like) branches.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But the collapse is not physical, it belongs to the mind of the people,
>>>> fungible and then differentiated, in the infinite tensor product, which,
>>>> with computationalism, should be a mirror of the fact that we are
>>>> indeterminate on infinitely many sigma_1 sentences, where the ortholattice
>>>> structure is determined by the logic of self-reference.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My opinion is that collapse is what makes objects physical.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is my opinion too. But the collapse is a psychological phenomenon,
>>> making directly the physical into something psychological.
>>>
>>>
>> Fine as long the process uses the correct initial conditions for each
>> branch
>>
>>
>> ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Everything else is just math (and deterministic.) So everything that
>>> could possibly happen can be computed ahead of time in a block 4
>>> dimensional muliverse that I call the Math Space With collapse, the
>>> physical space beco

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[Richard Ruquist]

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 24 Nov 2014, at 16:58, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 23 Nov 2014, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>>
>>> Bruno:  I doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two
>>> slits
>>>
>>> Richard: You should be ashamed
>>>
>>>
>>> That's hardly an argument.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed
>>
>>>
>>> Einstein already understood that if the collapse was a physical
>>> phenomenon, and if special relativity was correct, then locality would make
>>> a wave possibly collapse on two different eigenvector, like sometimes
>>> finding literally the photon going in both hole. In that case, the energy
>>> would be double, and the schroedinger "diffusion" of the wave could be used
>>> to ... create energy. A quantum perpetual machine could be constructed,
>>> and, pace George Levy, but following John Clark's quote of Eddington, we
>>> can stop here ...
>>>
>>
>> Yes. I like Einstein's single pinhole thought experiment the best. The
>> incident photon spreads in spherical waves beyond the hole from ray optics.
>> So if waves could carry energy, the energy density would  drop by 1/r^2
>> where r is distance from the hole.
>> If we wrap the experiment with a spherical detector sheet, the energy
>> density incident on the sheet would be a constant across the spherical
>> sheet and the amount incident on any detector would be a fraction of the
>> photon energy. So there is not enough energy incident on any detector to
>> make a photon of the original energy. That's classical thinking and it is
>> wrong.
>>
>> With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at the same energy
>> and frequency as the original photon but in a different world. So the total
>> energy in the multiverse will locally have increased by the number of
>> detectors times the photon energy. The only way to conserve energy is to
>> detect only one photon of the same energy and frequency as the original
>> photon.
>>
>>
>>
>> ... or the conservation of energy is something which has to be accounted
>> in branches, not in the multiverse.
>>
>
> Fine as long as the input energy in each branch is normalized by the
> quantum probabilities
>
>
> No, the conservation of energy is global, and should be statistically
> verified in the normal (non Harry-Potter-like) branches.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But the collapse is not physical, it belongs to the mind of the people,
>>> fungible and then differentiated, in the infinite tensor product, which,
>>> with computationalism, should be a mirror of the fact that we are
>>> indeterminate on infinitely many sigma_1 sentences, where the ortholattice
>>> structure is determined by the logic of self-reference.
>>>
>>
>>
>> My opinion is that collapse is what makes objects physical.
>>
>>
>> That is my opinion too. But the collapse is a psychological phenomenon,
>> making directly the physical into something psychological.
>>
>>
> Fine as long the process uses the correct initial conditions for each
> branch
>
>
> ?
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Everything else is just math (and deterministic.) So everything that
>> could possibly happen can be computed ahead of time in a block 4
>> dimensional muliverse that I call the Math Space With collapse, the
>> physical space becomes lines in the Math Space. That is not an argument. It
>> is just how I see reality.
>>
>>
>> OK.
>>
>>
>>
>> For a computationalist (who thinks), the collapse is not real, but the
>>> wave is not real too. It is itself the product of a Moiré effect on all
>>> computations.
>>>
>>>
>> I agree. With computationalism nothing is real except the math. All is
>> illusion- maya. So comp must have the support of Hinduism and Buddhism.
>>
>>
>> And christianism before the 5th century, and judaism and Islam, before
>> the 11th century. The obsession with matter came later. I find this weird,
>> because there are no evidence for it.
>>
>
>
> I'll take your word for it. So its not in history books?
>
>
>

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

[Richard Ruquist]

The article was about the bad fit.

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:58 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 25 November 2014 at 11:53, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>> The continuing tests have been done. The results are in. That is what the
>> article is about.
>>
>> I only saw references to a bad fit with CMBR measurements, there was no
> mention of expanding galaxies.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[Richard Ruquist]

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:08 AM, Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> meekerdb wrote:
>
>>
>> ISTM there are two ways of looking at it.  In one you say before the
>> event there were several possibilities x,y,z,... with probabilites
>> a,b,c,... and one of them, x, happened.  The energy before x was the same
>> as after x, so energy is conserved.  In the other you say x happened with
>> probability a in the multiverse, y happened with probability b in the
>> multiverse, z happened with probability c in the multiverse,...  And in
>> each of x,y,z energy was conserved and since a+b+c+...=1 energy is
>> conserved in the multiverse. Non-conservation only appears when you use
>> these two pictures inconsistently.
>>
>
> This seems to be the same as the renormalization that Wilczek talks about
> -- you essentially re-weight energies in the same way as you re-weight
> probabilities.
>
>
> If you mean by re-weighting the energies that the particles in different
branches have different energies,
then for example if the particle were a photon, each branch would have a
photon of a different frequency.
That would make MWI chaotic.

But if each branch has the same photon at the original frequency, energy is
not conserved.

OTOH if there is a probability that a branch will not happen, which is
always the case with renormalization,
then that's pretty close to a wave collapse. With renormalization there is
a probability that no branch will happen.
That also leads to chaos.
Richard



>   From an instrumentalist viewpoint (which I think can be useful) "energy"
>> is just the conjugate variable of "time".  We want our theories to apply at
>> all times so we seek formulations of energy and time that do this as simply
>> as possible.  Having a conserved quantity called "energy" is a consequence
>> of having theories that apply uniformly in time.
>>
>
> Without local energy conservation QM, on which MWI is based, is in real
> trouble.
>
> Bruce
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

[Richard Ruquist]

The continuing tests have been done. The results are in. That is what the
article is about.

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM, LizR  wrote:

> Shouldn't this be testable? If DM is disappearing then galaxies should be
> expanding as there is less mass holding them together, surely? (And large
> scale structure may also be different now from what it was in the past.) Is
> there evidence of this sort of change?
>
> On 25 November 2014 at 10:48,  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, November 24, 2014 9:17:09 PM UTC, yanniru wrote:
>>>
>>> Isn't this news a few months old?
>>>
>>
>> dunno, I just saw it now on the Mind list on yahoo groups
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[Richard Ruquist]

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> Wrong. Renormalization multiples the total energy in the multiverse.
>>
>
> I can do no more than refer you to Frank Wilczek:
>
> http://frankwilczek.com/2013/multiverseEnergy01.pdf


Excerpt: "In this precise sense those two branches describe mutually
inaccessible (decoherent) worlds, both made of the same materials, and
both occupying the same space. "

Two whole worlds of extra energy and matter. You got to be kidding.

>
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>  On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Bruce Kellett > <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:
>>
>> Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Bruce Kellett
>> mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>
>> <mailto:bhkellett@optusnet.__com.au
>>     <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>>> wrote:
>>
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>> With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a
>> photon at
>> the same energy and frequency as the original photon
>> but in
>> a different world. So the total energy in the
>> multiverse
>> will locally have increased by the number of
>> detectors times
>> the photon energy. The only way to conserve energy is
>> to
>> detect only one photon of the same energy and
>> frequency as
>> the original photon.
>>
>>
>> ... or the conservation of energy is something which has
>> to be
>> accounted in branches, not in the multiverse.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think so. The multiverse is described by the SWE,
>> and that
>> is just a unitary transformation in Hilbert space. It
>> satisfies
>> energy conservation by construction (time translation
>> invariance and
>> Noether's theorem).
>>
>> You have to renormalize in each branch to get the observed
>> branch-wise energy conservation -- conservation is automatic
>> only
>> for the multiverse.
>>
>>
>> Renormalization increases the energy of the multiverse. No
>> conservation. No renormalization results in chaos.
>>
>>
>> Renormalizing the (collapsed) wave function for a branch does not
>> affect the wave function of the multiverse. The procedure is ugly,
>> but doesn't lead to difficulties.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[Richard Ruquist]

Wrong. Renormalization multiples the total energy in the multiverse.

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Bruce Kellett > <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:
>>
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>> With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at
>> the same energy and frequency as the original photon but in
>> a different world. So the total energy in the multiverse
>> will locally have increased by the number of detectors times
>> the photon energy. The only way to conserve energy is to
>> detect only one photon of the same energy and frequency as
>> the original photon.
>>
>>
>> ... or the conservation of energy is something which has to be
>> accounted in branches, not in the multiverse.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think so. The multiverse is described by the SWE, and that
>> is just a unitary transformation in Hilbert space. It satisfies
>> energy conservation by construction (time translation invariance and
>> Noether's theorem).
>>
>> You have to renormalize in each branch to get the observed
>> branch-wise energy conservation -- conservation is automatic only
>> for the multiverse.
>>
>>
>> Renormalization increases the energy of the multiverse. No conservation.
>> No renormalization results in chaos.
>>
>
> Renormalizing the (collapsed) wave function for a branch does not affect
> the wave function of the multiverse. The procedure is ugly, but doesn't
> lead to difficulties.
>
> Bruce
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[Richard Ruquist]

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>>  With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at the same
>>> energy and frequency as the original photon but in a different world. So
>>> the total energy in the multiverse will locally have increased by the
>>> number of detectors times the photon energy. The only way to conserve
>>> energy is to detect only one photon of the same energy and frequency as the
>>> original photon.
>>>
>>
>> ... or the conservation of energy is something which has to be accounted
>> in branches, not in the multiverse.
>>
>
>
> I don't think so. The multiverse is described by the SWE, and that is just
> a unitary transformation in Hilbert space. It satisfies energy conservation
> by construction (time translation invariance and Noether's theorem).
>
> You have to renormalize in each branch to get the observed branch-wise
> energy conservation -- conservation is automatic only for the multiverse.


Renormalization increases the energy of the multiverse. No conservation. No
renormalization results in chaos.

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

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

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

[Richard Ruquist]

Isn't this news a few months old?

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:05 PM,  wrote:

> http://www.space.com/27852-dark-energy-eating-dark-matter.html
>
> my comment is testimony. my worldview predicted this. honest.
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[Richard Ruquist]

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 23 Nov 2014, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>> Bruno:  I doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two
>> slits
>>
>> Richard: You should be ashamed
>>
>>
>> That's hardly an argument.
>>
>
> Agreed
>
>>
>> Einstein already understood that if the collapse was a physical
>> phenomenon, and if special relativity was correct, then locality would make
>> a wave possibly collapse on two different eigenvector, like sometimes
>> finding literally the photon going in both hole. In that case, the energy
>> would be double, and the schroedinger "diffusion" of the wave could be used
>> to ... create energy. A quantum perpetual machine could be constructed,
>> and, pace George Levy, but following John Clark's quote of Eddington, we
>> can stop here ...
>>
>
> Yes. I like Einstein's single pinhole thought experiment the best. The
> incident photon spreads in spherical waves beyond the hole from ray optics.
> So if waves could carry energy, the energy density would  drop by 1/r^2
> where r is distance from the hole.
> If we wrap the experiment with a spherical detector sheet, the energy
> density incident on the sheet would be a constant across the spherical
> sheet and the amount incident on any detector would be a fraction of the
> photon energy. So there is not enough energy incident on any detector to
> make a photon of the original energy. That's classical thinking and it is
> wrong.
>
> With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at the same energy
> and frequency as the original photon but in a different world. So the total
> energy in the multiverse will locally have increased by the number of
> detectors times the photon energy. The only way to conserve energy is to
> detect only one photon of the same energy and frequency as the original
> photon.
>
>
>
> ... or the conservation of energy is something which has to be accounted
> in branches, not in the multiverse.
>

Fine as long as the input energy in each branch is normalized by the
quantum probabilities

>
>
>
>
>
>
> But the collapse is not physical, it belongs to the mind of the people,
>> fungible and then differentiated, in the infinite tensor product, which,
>> with computationalism, should be a mirror of the fact that we are
>> indeterminate on infinitely many sigma_1 sentences, where the ortholattice
>> structure is determined by the logic of self-reference.
>>
>
>
> My opinion is that collapse is what makes objects physical.
>
>
> That is my opinion too. But the collapse is a psychological phenomenon,
> making directly the physical into something psychological.
>
>
Fine as long the process uses the correct initial conditions for each
branch

>
>
>
> Everything else is just math (and deterministic.) So everything that could
> possibly happen can be computed ahead of time in a block 4 dimensional
> muliverse that I call the Math Space With collapse, the physical
> space becomes lines in the Math Space. That is not an argument. It is just
> how I see reality.
>
>
> OK.
>
>
>
> For a computationalist (who thinks), the collapse is not real, but the
>> wave is not real too. It is itself the product of a Moiré effect on all
>> computations.
>>
>>
> I agree. With computationalism nothing is real except the math. All is
> illusion- maya. So comp must have the support of Hinduism and Buddhism.
>
>
> And christianism before the 5th century, and judaism and Islam, before the
> 11th century. The obsession with matter came later. I find this weird,
> because there are no evidence for it.
>


I'll take your word for it. So its not in history books?

>
>
>
> I prefer to think that both quantum waves and particles are real, but that
> waves are math objects and particles are physical objects. Again that is
> not an argument..
>
> My argument is that the block multiverse, if it were to become entirely
> physical as MWI poses,
>
>
> Not necessarily. In fact comp offers a compromise between the idealist
> (the quantum describes only information) and many-worlds, by introducing
> the idea that reality is the many-dream aspect that arithmetic got when
> seen from inside. Of course, both the idealist and the MW are not
> satisfied, and in science, we still kill the diplomats.
>
>
>
Yes, many-dream arithmetic is part of Math Space

>
> would require a nearly infinite 

Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?

[Richard Ruquist]

MWI renormalization is just a snooker.

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:51 AM,  wrote:

>
>
> On Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:52:23 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> LizR wrote:
>> > On 22 November 2014 09:31, Richard Ruquist > > <mailto:yan...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Collapse is necessary if you wish to conserve energy.
>> >
>> > I've been trying to follow this, but I still don't get why this is so,
>> > or thought to be so. Is there a simple explanation that even I can
>> grasp?
>>
>> If you have a particle of a certain evergy and you measure its spin
>> projection, then in each world you get a certain result, but the
>> particle still carries all the energy of the original particle. So if
>> there are two possible spin states, then you have created two worlds,
>> each of which has all the energy of the original. That is the sense in
>> which energy is not conserved.
>>
>> The answer according to MWI advocates, at least as I have understood it,
>> is that just as probabilities have to be renormalized in each of the
>> daughter worlds, so does energy have to be renormalized. The probability
>> of spin up was 0.5 pre-measurement, but once you observe the result
>> 'up', the probability is renormalized to unity. Similarly, the energy
>> could have been expected to be 50% of the original, but renormalization
>> restores this to 100% in each world.
>>
>
>
>
>>
>> If you believe in MWI, believing in this renormalization is not such a
>> stretch.
>>
>
> exactly
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[Richard Ruquist]

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 23 Nov 2014, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> Bruno:  I doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two
> slits
>
> Richard: You should be ashamed
>
>
> That's hardly an argument.
>

Agreed

>
> Einstein already understood that if the collapse was a physical
> phenomenon, and if special relativity was correct, then locality would make
> a wave possibly collapse on two different eigenvector, like sometimes
> finding literally the photon going in both hole. In that case, the energy
> would be double, and the schroedinger "diffusion" of the wave could be used
> to ... create energy. A quantum perpetual machine could be constructed,
> and, pace George Levy, but following John Clark's quote of Eddington, we
> can stop here ...
>

Yes. I like Einstein's single pinhole thought experiment the best. The
incident photon spreads in spherical waves beyond the hole from ray optics.
So if waves could carry energy, the energy density would  drop by 1/r^2
where r is distance from the hole.
If we wrap the experiment with a spherical detector sheet, the energy
density incident on the sheet would be a constant across the spherical
sheet and the amount incident on any detector would be a fraction of the
photon energy. So there is not enough energy incident on any detector to
make a photon of the original energy. That's classical thinking and it is
wrong.

With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at the same energy
and frequency as the original photon but in a different world. So the total
energy in the multiverse will locally have increased by the number of
detectors times the photon energy. The only way to conserve energy is to
detect only one photon of the same energy and frequency as the original
photon.


But the collapse is not physical, it belongs to the mind of the people,
> fungible and then differentiated, in the infinite tensor product, which,
> with computationalism, should be a mirror of the fact that we are
> indeterminate on infinitely many sigma_1 sentences, where the ortholattice
> structure is determined by the logic of self-reference.
>


My opinion is that collapse is what makes objects physical. Everything else
is just math (and deterministic.) So everything that could possibly happen
can be computed ahead of time in a block 4 dimensional muliverse that I
call the Math Space With collapse, the physical space becomes lines
in the Math Space. That is not an argument. It is just how I see reality.

For a computationalist (who thinks), the collapse is not real, but the wave
> is not real too. It is itself the product of a Moiré effect on all
> computations.
>
>
I agree. With computationalism nothing is real except the math. All is
illusion- maya. So comp must have the support of Hinduism and Buddhism. I
prefer to think that both quantum waves and particles are real, but that
waves are math objects and particles are physical objects. Again that is
not an argument..

My argument is that the block multiverse, if it were to become entirely
physical as MWI poses, would require a nearly infinite amount of energy to
exist, and more and more as time goes on. That of course is impossible. So
MW reality must be illusion.

Another way to look at it is that conservation of energy comes from
Noether's time symmetry. But there is no need for time in a block
multiverse. So there is no need for the conservation of energy.


The alternative is some kind of mathematical  wave collapse to conserve
both energy and quanta, which fortunately results in a unique reality where
time matters. I have suggested that if the wave has BEC entanglement
properties, that collapse may be instantaneous.But that collapse mechanism
uses experiment-derived properties rather than math for lack of any time
dependence.
Richard

> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 23 Nov 2014, at 12:32, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>> Yes, and as the branches multiply, so does the energy.
>>
>>
>> I doubt this, but eventually this will depend on how we define energy. I
>> doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two slits, and I
>> doubt Shor algorithm needs energy to handle 10^500 parallel superposition
>> state. Energy is a local relative (gauge) notion, which I am not sure can
>> be easily applied to the whole configuration space, which energy can be put
>> a zero.
>>
>> Of course with computationalism there is only an arithmetical reality,
>> and all physicalness is a view from inside. All branches of all
>> computations including the one with oracle are run in the arithmetical
>> reality, and it is clear, imo, that energy is only an internal relative
&g

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[Richard Ruquist]

Bruno:  I doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two slits

Richard: You should be ashamed

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 23 Nov 2014, at 12:32, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> Yes, and as the branches multiply, so does the energy.
>
>
> I doubt this, but eventually this will depend on how we define energy. I
> doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two slits, and I
> doubt Shor algorithm needs energy to handle 10^500 parallel superposition
> state. Energy is a local relative (gauge) notion, which I am not sure can
> be easily applied to the whole configuration space, which energy can be put
> a zero.
>
> Of course with computationalism there is only an arithmetical reality, and
> all physicalness is a view from inside. All branches of all computations
> including the one with oracle are run in the arithmetical reality, and it
> is clear, imo, that energy is only an internal relative notion. Of course
> we need to justify why the reversible computations win the limit measure
> "game".
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:52 AM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> On 21 November 2014 23:07, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> It seems, yes. In our branch. But not in the physical reality as a
>>>> whole, where information and energy are constant, and arbitrary I would 
>>>> say.
>>>>
>>>> Energy is not constant in the MWI multiverse.
>>>
>>> Energy is not constant in a general-relativistic universe.
>>
>> I believe energy is approximately conserved within a branch of the
>> multiverse, in the MWI view? The "approximately" being because branches are
>> only approximately defined?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[Richard Ruquist]

Yes, and as the branches multiply, so does the energy.

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:52 AM, LizR  wrote:

> On 21 November 2014 23:07, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>>
>>> It seems, yes. In our branch. But not in the physical reality as a
>>> whole, where information and energy are constant, and arbitrary I would say.
>>>
>>> Energy is not constant in the MWI multiverse.
>>
>> Energy is not constant in a general-relativistic universe.
>
> I believe energy is approximately conserved within a branch of the
> multiverse, in the MWI view? The "approximately" being because branches are
> only approximately defined?
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?

[Richard Ruquist]

If Feynman could renormalize, why can't MWIers(;<)

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> LizR wrote:
>
>> On 22 November 2014 09:31, Richard Ruquist > yann...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Collapse is necessary if you wish to conserve energy.
>>
>> I've been trying to follow this, but I still don't get why this is so, or
>> thought to be so. Is there a simple explanation that even I can grasp?
>>
>
> If you have a particle of a certain evergy and you measure its spin
> projection, then in each world you get a certain result, but the particle
> still carries all the energy of the original particle. So if there are two
> possible spin states, then you have created two worlds, each of which has
> all the energy of the original. That is the sense in which energy is not
> conserved.
>
> The answer according to MWI advocates, at least as I have understood it,
> is that just as probabilities have to be renormalized in each of the
> daughter worlds, so does energy have to be renormalized. The probability of
> spin up was 0.5 pre-measurement, but once you observe the result 'up', the
> probability is renormalized to unity. Similarly, the energy could have been
> expected to be 50% of the original, but renormalization restores this to
> 100% in each world.
>
> If you believe in MWI, believing in this renormalization is not such a
> stretch.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>
>> It seems to me that if you have fungible universes which diverge (as in
>> FOR) then you already have a continuum of particles available, and these
>> get shared out when the universes diverge. But they get shared out
>> continuously - we have a continuum of universes and a continuum of
>> particles...
>>
>> (At this point I try to follow what's happening and my head explodes, as
>> in "Scanners")
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?

[Richard Ruquist]

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:05 PM,  wrote:

>
>
> On Friday, November 21, 2014 12:40:11 PM UTC, yanniru wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 7:02 AM,  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, November 17, 2014 11:49:06 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 16 Nov 2014, at 20:32, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:

 Interesting speculative physics… that makes claims that parallel worlds
 may be testable.

 “A new theory, proposed by Howard Wiseman, Director of the Centre of
 Quantum Dynamics at Griffith University, is different. No new universes are
 ever created. Instead many worlds have existed, side-by-side, since the
 beginning of time. “




 Well, to be sure, this is how Deutsch interprets Everett. Me too, even
 for computationalism, where I sum up this by the Y = II rule. The
 mutiplication (Y)  in the future duplicate the past (Y becomes II).

>>>
>>> I once asked you if you shared Deutsch's interpretation of the MWI in
>>> terms of fungible worlds divergent by decoherance, but otherwise
>>> invariant in all dimensions a frozen structure, every thing that ever has,
>>> and ever will, ever can occur, frozen in little multidimensional capsule.
>>>
>>
>> That is exactly how I see it. From computationalism, everything that can
>> possibly happen can be computed ahead of time
>> in a deterministic block multiverse. No need for time, energy or matter-
>> it is entirely mathematical- a 4 dimensional math space (actually pops out
>> of my metaverse` string cosmology). In a deterministic universe
>> consciousness and free will seem to also not be needed. But once the
>> quantum mechanics of energy and matter, along with conservation of
>> mass/energy are introduced, the multiverse becomes unique. That's what
>> physics says. But lately, a strong dose of entanglement is thought to be
>> needed to change quantum probabilities into statistical mechanics, the
>> basis of ordinary thermodynamics.
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>>
>>> You said you didn't, you saw it differently. I forget precisely what and
>>> how. Have you changed your mind at a point between? What was the crucial
>>> shift that fundamentally changed the picture for you?
>>>
>>> Perhaps you are now closely enough aligned with him that you will answer
>>> the question that he will not despite many times my asking.
>>>
>>> Deutsch explains in BoI chapter "The Reality of Abstractions" that
>>> abstractions have physical reality independent of dependence of emergent
>>> features from underlying, increasingly physical layers
>>>
>>> So, given independence, that is causal isolation, what is the physical
>>> mechanism by which decoherence at the quantum level, will trigger
>>> divergence, and divergence will replicate abstract layers that are
>>> independent of quantum forces?
>>>
>>> How does that happen? And if it doesn't happen precisely every single
>>> time, how can macroscopic reality be stable? Cause and effect would never
>>> endure
>>>
>>> Second challenge: If the two slit experiment is explained by divergent
>>> universes, then the pattern we see in the interval of 'collapse' is
>>> therefore the momentary isolation of just this universe as all the others
>>> diverge.
>>>
>>> Which means it should be distinctive in its own right, from what we
>>> shall see as the pattern in 'one slit' experiment.
>>> Is it? I shall bet it is indistinguishable.
>>>
>>
>> The one-slit pattern is a smear with perhaps some diffraction
>> oscillations on the fringe of the smear.
>> The double-slit experiment shows a very distinctive interference pattern
>> instead and in place of the smear.
>>
>
> I don't agree. There must be an interference at this level. It just take
> place at a resolution or displacement (i.e. dimensionality) that isn't
> obvious and/or a non-trivial analytical problem teasing out. But it will be
> there. The carry-on by infinity theorists that it is not stands directly in
> contradiction of the current lynchpin for why a multiverse is...IS
> QM...and QM isMULTIVERSE(taken seriously you see). That would
> be the invariant universality of the wave function.
>
> At all scales, levels, universes and sensesexcept the one
> slit experiment where it isn't. That's actually a wave function
> collapse event too, you know.
>
>>
>>
>
Simple ray optics tells you that beyond the pinhole or single slit,
the wavefront proceeds spherically for a pinhole or cylindrically for a 2D
slit.
Collapse is necessary if you wish to conserve energy.
There is no interference for a pinhole or single slit.
Richard


>
>>> Then, is the one slit experiment isolating this universe in some way?
>>>
>>
>> There are an infinity of other universes in the one-slit experiment.
>> But say the incident photon has a certain frequency, that is a fixed
>> energy.
>> The detection screen then records only one photon of the same frequency
>> and same energy.
>> Thereby quantum collapse ensures conservation of en

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[Richard Ruquist]

You are right. My racewalking buddy and college classmate, a Doctor
Professor (retired) on the Yale Medical School faculty,
is engaged in Big Data regarding reading tissue data as to whether it is
carcinogenic. Right now that is entirely done by visual inspection of
doctors using their personal judgement. Doctor's pay will be reduced if
they succeed.
Richard

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 8:06 AM,  wrote:

>
>
> On Friday, November 21, 2014 12:39:14 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, November 16, 2014 10:56:37 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16 Nov 2014, at 08:45, LizR wrote:
>>>
>>> On 16 November 2014 07:42, John Clark  wrote:
>>>
 On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:39 PM,  wrote:

 > The idea that computers are people has a long and storied history.
>

 I would maintain that from a long term operational viewpoint it doesn't
 matter if the humans on the Supreme Court consider computers to be people
 or not, the important thing is if computers consider humans to be people or
 not.

 Making certain probably reasonable assumptions, that is quite likely.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Only if we remember that money is a tool, and not a goal. If money is
>>> the goal, machines will correctly conclude that humans are not affordable:
>>> they need 02, plants, a very rich and complex environment, etc. But with
>>> some luck we will be digital before, and get more affordable in the
>>> machine's point of view.
>>>
>>> To say that corporation are person is, imo, a rather big error. Only
>>> machine having the Löbian ability can be considered as person, and
>>> corporations are not.
>>>
>>>
>> What he said that was most new for me was, the supreme court may decide
>> corporations are individuals or not, but that algorithms increasingly
>> define corporations, and what those programs do, they have not say over at
>> all.
>>
>> The damaging mythology was the way a small cadre of
>> technologist-computationalist-futurist self-reinforce themselves into an
>> unchallenged space of defining the vision for A.I. in wholly positive and
>> historical inevitable terms. A.I. is coming, it's here now, it's going to
>> change everything, it'll be better, it'll be the better version of us even.
>>
>> Which gets the same structure of delayed response that ultimately because
>> dominated by the merchants of doom who think this is going to end badly,
>> either A.I. here, or alien A.I. Which reinforces the next version of the
>> same version of the positive cadre emitted before. It becomes invariant.
>>
>> Which would be fine, but neither one of the scenarios are anything like
>> reflective of what is taking place on the ground. A.I. is no closer than
>> it was 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. But what is new and big is Big Data. But
>> Big Data does not involve theories of A.I. nor efforts. it's about taking
>> very large sets of paired data and converging by some basic rule to a
>> single thing. This is how translation services work. It's very large sets
>> of translations of sentences, and sentence components, simply rehashed for
>> best fit to the text in translation.
>>
>
> It actually works fairly adequately for most translation needs. Which
> would be great, except this:
>
> -- The Big Data system is not independent at any point. Every day there
> needs to be a huge scrape of the translations performed by human
> translators.
>
> -- Human translation professions are in a state of freefall. There used to
> be a career structure with rising income and security and status. Now there
> isn't. Now, there isn't even a diary scheduling up coming translation
> contracts, the requirements and the research project timelines that there
> used to be. Now it's much more a 'realtime' industry. You be available and
> up to date. You be available first for a job if one comes up. It might. Or
> it might not, today. It's back to hand to mouth for them.
>
> -- which would be a case of "so...wheels of changerelocate, retrain,
> already". Save, the Big Data that has brought this about - the algorithm
> defining the corporation, cannot operate unless those translators stay in
> post. The Big Data system takes from them every day, but does not ask or
> receive permission, and does not pay them, and by another draft under the
> floorboards sucks their years coming specialism away..and their dreams and
> life-plan.
>
> The other salient insight he mentioned was that Big Data, such as it is,
> is most easily established in those transactions that naturally involve a
> degree of manipulation. Seduction, misdirectionlike dating sites. Or
> personal activities in the real and cyber/financial landscape of servicing
> consumption. The shopping trail. Browsers, footprints.
>
> Because manipulating behaviour in complex ways is something Big Data is
> well positioned to do. It can learn...purely from statistical modelling and
> the daily scrape. A.I. you can forget about until there's a little new
> progress. But

Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?

[Richard Ruquist]

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 7:02 AM,  wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, November 17, 2014 11:49:06 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16 Nov 2014, at 20:32, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
>>
>> Interesting speculative physics… that makes claims that parallel worlds
>> may be testable.
>>
>> “A new theory, proposed by Howard Wiseman, Director of the Centre of
>> Quantum Dynamics at Griffith University, is different. No new universes are
>> ever created. Instead many worlds have existed, side-by-side, since the
>> beginning of time. “
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, to be sure, this is how Deutsch interprets Everett. Me too, even
>> for computationalism, where I sum up this by the Y = II rule. The
>> mutiplication (Y)  in the future duplicate the past (Y becomes II).
>>
>
> I once asked you if you shared Deutsch's interpretation of the MWI in
> terms of fungible worlds divergent by decoherance, but otherwise
> invariant in all dimensions a frozen structure, every thing that ever has,
> and ever will, ever can occur, frozen in little multidimensional capsule.
>

That is exactly how I see it. From computationalism, everything that can
possibly happen can be computed ahead of time
in a deterministic block multiverse. No need for time, energy or matter- it
is entirely mathematical- a 4 dimensional math space (actually pops out of
my metaverse` string cosmology). In a deterministic universe consciousness
and free will seem to also not be needed. But once the quantum mechanics of
energy and matter, along with conservation of mass/energy are introduced,
the multiverse becomes unique. That's what physics says. But lately, a
strong dose of entanglement is thought to be needed to change quantum
probabilities into statistical mechanics, the basis of ordinary
thermodynamics.
Richard


>
> You said you didn't, you saw it differently. I forget precisely what and
> how. Have you changed your mind at a point between? What was the crucial
> shift that fundamentally changed the picture for you?
>
> Perhaps you are now closely enough aligned with him that you will answer
> the question that he will not despite many times my asking.
>
> Deutsch explains in BoI chapter "The Reality of Abstractions" that
> abstractions have physical reality independent of dependence of emergent
> features from underlying, increasingly physical layers
>
> So, given independence, that is causal isolation, what is the physical
> mechanism by which decoherence at the quantum level, will trigger
> divergence, and divergence will replicate abstract layers that are
> independent of quantum forces?
>
> How does that happen? And if it doesn't happen precisely every single
> time, how can macroscopic reality be stable? Cause and effect would never
> endure
>
> Second challenge: If the two slit experiment is explained by divergent
> universes, then the pattern we see in the interval of 'collapse' is
> therefore the momentary isolation of just this universe as all the others
> diverge.
>
> Which means it should be distinctive in its own right, from what we shall
> see as the pattern in 'one slit' experiment.
> Is it? I shall bet it is indistinguishable.
>

The one-slit pattern is a smear with perhaps some diffraction oscillations
on the fringe of the smear.
The double-slit experiment shows a very distinctive interference pattern
instead and in place of the smear.


>
> Then, is the one slit experiment isolating this universe in some way?
>

There are an infinity of other universes in the one-slit experiment.
But say the incident photon has a certain frequency, that is a fixed energy.
The detection screen then records only one photon of the same frequency and
same energy.
Thereby quantum collapse ensures conservation of energy.
The infinite number of other worlds still exist mathematically in the Math
Space of the block multiverse...
But a recalculation, like making a wrong turn, must be done in Math Space
to account for quantum collapse.
The need for continual recalculations may be the foundation of time.
Richard

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

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[Richard Ruquist]

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 20 Nov 2014, at 19:10, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 20 Nov 2014, at 01:03, Russell Standish wrote:
>>
>>  On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:06:47AM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The collapse hypothesis is correct if we need to conserve the total
>>>> energy
>>>> and information in the universe.
>>>> Richard
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wavefunction collapse creates information, it does not conserve it.
>>>
>>> Conserving information is equivalent to demanding unitarity of
>>> evolution. Wave function collapse is non-unitary.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly. It is the advantage of the "many-worlds". The evolution of the
>> universe/multiverse is a unitary transformation in the configuration space
>> (the Hilbert space). It is deterministic, reversible, and let the
>> probabilities and the information invariant. It is also local. And it
>> explains why the memories of the observers contains appearance of
>> indeterminacy (in a way coherent with computationalism that Everett
>> assumed), non-locality, irreversibility, etc.
>>
>> Like you say: the collapse, if it was a physical phenomenon, would just
>> contradict QM. The collapse is really an axiom saying that QM is false when
>> observers do measurement. But this has never been successfully clarified,
>> imo.
>>
>
>
> With a sufficient number of observations/measurements the entire wave
> function is mapped out on the detector screen.
>
>
> Locally, I mean in your branch of the universal wave (say). But the number
> of branch is the same, in the differentiation (as opposed to splitting)
> view.
>
>
>
> Therefore experimental measurements verify QM. It seems we live in an
> energy conserving but non-unitary, information-creating universe.
>
>
> It seems, yes. In our branch. But not in the physical reality as a whole,
> where information and energy are constant, and arbitrary I would say.
>
> Energy is not constant in the MWI multiverse.
Richard

> Bruno
>
>
>
> Richard
>
>
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
>>> Principal, High Performance Coders
>>> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
>>> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>>>
>>> Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
>>> (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)
>>> 
>>> 
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[Richard Ruquist]

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 20 Nov 2014, at 12:53, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:04 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one, in
>> which the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a new
>> clone, like an amoeba does. Perhaps there are universes that split off when
>> a decision gets made where, where it is analogous to a data file. If this
>> is so, then part of the multiverse is a relational database. Call it
>> Oracle-1 Delta Googleplex. I have dibbs on the name. Patent Pending!
>>
>> Collapse also doesn't conserve information. It generates new information
>> - the specific way in which the collapse occurred, which adds some random
>> bits to a value one could be constructing, and in any case adds that new
>> state to the universe. Only the MWI preserves information afaics, by having
>> the wave not collapse.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Bruno proved that information is not conserved.
>
>
> ?
>
> On the contrary, I insist that information is conserved in the global
> picture. Unitary evolution conserves basically everything, the scalar
> product, the probabilities, information, etc. It is the collapse which
> introduces an abnormal elevation of information in the memories of the
> subsystem involved, but this is already explained in the self-suplication:
> the guy who wake up in Washington get one bit of information, and the guy
> who wakes up in Moscow get one bit of information, despite no information
> is created in the duplication.
>
>
>
> Collapse conserves energy.
>
>
>
> The collapse does not make sense to me. I don't know what is the collapse,
> except a magical non local trick to pretend that we are unique.
>


I give up. Bruno, you have to learn for yourself how collapse and QM
conserves energy.
Just think of a single pinhole experiment like Einstein did. One particle
in, the same particle out, every time.
Seems you are so anti-materialistic that energy is just an illusion and
need not be conserved.
Richard

>
> Well, I came in this list, because it was based on the appreciation of the
> many-worlds, if not "verything" idea, given that I show that
> computationalism entails a many-dream interpretation of elementary
> arithmetic, from which the many interfering compuations must be derived, so
> that we can test computationalism.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: LizR 
>> To: everything-list 
>> Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 5:39 pm
>> Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
>>
>>  Collapse also doesn't conserve information. It generates new
>> information - the specific way in which the collapse occurred, which adds
>> some random bits to a value one could be constructing, and in any case adds
>> that new state to the universe. Only the MWI preserves information afaics,
>> by having the wave not collapse.
>>
>>   --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 

Re: Quantum Mechanics Violation of the Second Law

[Richard Ruquist]

"statistical-mechanical ensembles arise naturally from quantum
entanglement"

http://people.physics.anu.edu.au/~tas110/Teaching/Lectures/L5/Material/Lloyd06.pdf

a lecture given by Seth Lloyd

QUANTUM THERMODYNAMICS
Excuse our ignorance
Classically, the second law of thermodynamics implies that our knowledge
about
a system always decreases. A more flattering interpretation connects
entropy
with entanglement inherent to quantum mechanics.
SETH LLOYD
is in the Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts
Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139-4307, USA

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 20 Nov 2014, at 02:15, George wrote:
>
>  Hi everyone
>
>
> This post is relevant to a few threads in this list
>
> “Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?”  and “Two
> apparently different forms of entropy”.
>
>
> I am sorry that I haven’t posted to this list for a while. I have been
> very busy with my work.
>
> In my latest research I have found that Quantum Mechanics, in particular
> the Pauli Exclusion Principle, can be used to go around limitations of
> classical physics and break the Second Law.
>
>
>
> Papers describing the research are publicly available at
>
>
>
> http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/11/4700
>
>
>
> and
>
>
>
>
> https://sites.google.com/a/entropicpower.com/entropicpower-com/Thermoelectric_Adiabatic_Effects_Due_to_Non-Maxwellian_Carrier_Distribution.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1
> (Currently under review)
>
>
>
> Nice to hear from you George. It has been a long time indeed. I will take
> a look, but up to now, my computer refuses to open the document ...
>
> To be frank, I doubt very much that QM could break the Second Law. If you
> could sum up the reason here, it would be nice. Take your time (I am also
> rather busy those days).
>
>
> Best,
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> These papers describe experimentally observed thermoelectric adiabatic
> effects (the existence of a voltage without any heat flow, and the
> existence of a temperature differential without any input current.)
>
>
>
> Here is some background: The story begins with a thermodynamicist of the
> nineteenth century, Josef Loschmidt, who challenged Boltzmann and Maxwell
> regarding the Second Law. Loschmidt argued that the temperature lapse in
> the atmosphere could be used to run a heat engine, thereby violating the
> Second Law. Loschmidt was wrong as shall be explained below but it is
> instructive to go through his reasoning. Loschmidt argued that the
> atmospheric temperature lapse occurs spontaneously, is self renewing and is
> due to the decrease in kinetic energy of molecules as they go up against
> the gravitational gradient between collisions. Therefore the atmospheric
> temperature decreases adiabatically with altitude and could be used to run
> a heat engine.
>
> However, Loschmidt ignored the fact that molecular energies are
> distributed over a range of values and that gravity separates the molecules
> according to their energy in a fashion analogous to a mass spectrometer
> separating particles according to mass. Molecules with greater energy can
> reach greater heights. If one assigns a Maxwellian distribution to the
> molecules (exponentially decaying function of energy), then any vertical
> translation of a group of molecules results in a lowering of their kinetic
> energy, corresponding to a left shift of their distribution. After the
> distribution is renormalized to account for the lower density at higher
> elevation, the original distribution is recovered indicating that the gas
> is isothermal, not adiabatic as Loschmidt conjectured. This effect is due
> to the exponential nature of the distribution. An addition (of potential
> energy) in the exponent corresponds to a multiplication of the amplitude.
> So Loschmidt was wrong: the Loschmidt effect (lowering of KE with
> altitude) is exactly canceled by the energy separation effect caused by
> gravity. However he was only wrong with respect to gases that follow
> Maxwell’s distribution.
>
>
>
> Electrical carriers in semiconductor materials are Fermions following
> Fermi-Dirac statistics and the above argument does not apply to them. When
> subjected to a voltage they do develop a temperature gradient. This
> temperature differential is hard to observe because it is promptly shorted
> by heat phonons. As experiments at Caltech have shown (see my papers), it
> can be observed in certain circumstances such as in high Z thermoelectric
> materials in which electrical carriers and heat phonons are strongly
> decoupled. The Onsager reciprocal of the temperature differential is a
> voltage differential which has also been experimentally observed.
>
>
>
> The two papers above describe these results in detail.
>
>
>
> In summary, quantum mechanics, in particular the Pauli Exclusion
> Principle, can be used to bypass classical mechanics in generating
> macroscopic effects violating the Second Law.
>
>

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[Richard Ruquist]

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 20 Nov 2014, at 01:03, Russell Standish wrote:
>
>  On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:06:47AM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The collapse hypothesis is correct if we need to conserve the total
>>> energy
>>> and information in the universe.
>>> Richard
>>>
>>
>>
>> Wavefunction collapse creates information, it does not conserve it.
>>
>> Conserving information is equivalent to demanding unitarity of
>> evolution. Wave function collapse is non-unitary.
>>
>
> Exactly. It is the advantage of the "many-worlds". The evolution of the
> universe/multiverse is a unitary transformation in the configuration space
> (the Hilbert space). It is deterministic, reversible, and let the
> probabilities and the information invariant. It is also local. And it
> explains why the memories of the observers contains appearance of
> indeterminacy (in a way coherent with computationalism that Everett
> assumed), non-locality, irreversibility, etc.
>
> Like you say: the collapse, if it was a physical phenomenon, would just
> contradict QM. The collapse is really an axiom saying that QM is false when
> observers do measurement. But this has never been successfully clarified,
> imo.
>


With a sufficient number of observations/measurements the entire wave
function is mapped out on the detector screen.
Therefore experimental measurements verify QM. It seems we live in an
energy conserving but non-unitary, information-creating universe.
Richard


>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 
>> 
>> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
>> Principal, High Performance Coders
>> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
>> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>>
>> Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
>> (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)
>> 
>> 
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?

[Richard Ruquist]

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 19 Nov 2014, at 19:43, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> In MWI it is rather difficult to reverse time and unsplit the universe.
>
>
> The "mutiverse" is only the quantum configuration space taken seriously.
> The SWE describe all quantum evolution as a rotation (a unitary
> transformation) of a state vector  in the Hilbert space.  I can hardly
> imagine something more reversible.
>
>
> It's not Hermitian
>
>
> It is unitary.
>


Well it lacks enough energy to go forward in time,
going backwards cannot be that hard.

>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> Richard
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:40 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Russell Standish > > wrote:
>>
>> >> I'd say that by about 1850 when people started to have a understanding
>>>> of what Entropy was physicists had all they needed to have known that the
>>>> universe must have started out in a very very low entropy state, that is to
>>>> say they could have predicted the Big Bang in the early to mid 19th
>>>> century; and they wouldn't have needed to go near a telescope to do so. But
>>>> unfortunately they didn't, it's one of the great failures of nerve or
>>>> imagination in the history of science.
>>>>
>>>
>>> > Boltzmann indeed predicted a low entropy state sometime in the past.
>>
>>
>> Yes but  Boltzmann thought that you could ignore boundary conditions and
>> the second law of thermodynamics alone was enough to logically deduce that
>> in the distant past the universe must have been in a very low entropy
>> state, but in 1876 Loschmidt pointed out that Boltzman was wrong about
>> that, he said you can't deduce a irreversible process, like the increase of
>> entropy, from classical dynamics alone because if you just reverse the
>> velocity of the particles in high entropy state B it will evolve back into
>> the low entropy state A that produced it.  And knowing that there are
>> VASTLY more high entropy states than low entropy states and asked what
>> state produced the stat we're in now you'd have to answer that it was
>> almost certainly one of those enormously numerous high entropy states
>> UNLESS you made a further assumption, the past hypothesis, the idea that
>> the universe must have started out in a very very low entropy state.
>>
>>   John K Clark
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[Richard Ruquist]

Objective Math-Space data recovery is nearly zero dependent on the
classification of channels and revelation.

Subjective Math-Space data recovery is possible, maybe even probable, but
is soon forgotten.

Richard

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:18 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Ok, understood now. Math Space, a.k.a. Platonic Space?). You wouldn't care
> to speculate on a data recovery for 'Math Space'? Some sort of magical
> read-write head? Sigh! I thought not. Thanks for the dear up.
>
> Mitch
>
> It seems that information is conserved in an MWI Math Space
> where every possibility is known ahead of time;
> whereas information is created, but energy conserved
> in in a wave-collapse physical space.
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Ruquist 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 8:08 am
> Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
>
>  It seems that information is conserved in an MWI Math Space
> where every possibility is known ahead of time;
> whereas information is created, but energy conserved
> in in a wave-collapse physical space.
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:59 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> This, I comprehend, I was just musing that why just keep the same concept
>> of universes? Why not go tegmark, or trans tegmark, with this. Why not
>> compare the super cosmos to be a data storing thing like a database, rather
>> than an acorn, hold merely biological data? Since reality seems to be
>> math(s) based, why not computational? Why not have a giant SAN, a storage
>> area network, rather then just a random access memory with lower mem? Its
>> just a conjecture from, and idiot, me, but since people like Seth Lloyd
>> have conjectured that the universe does processing, I am dropping the other
>> shoe on this.
>>
>> If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely
>> random bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon
>> went or whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view
>> that the information content is preserved, because you have all possible
>> outcomes and overall they cancel out (like in "Theory of nothing" but on a
>> smaller scale.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: LizR 
>> To: everything-list 
>> Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 9:59 pm
>> Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
>>
>>   On 20 November 2014 12:04, spudboy100 via Everything List <
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one, in
>>> which the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a new
>>> clone, like an amoeba does. Perhaps there are universes that split off when
>>> a decision gets made where, where it is analogous to a data file. If this
>>> is so, then part of the multiverse is a relational database. Call it
>>> Oracle-1 Delta Googleplex. I have dibbs on the name. Patent Pending!
>>>
>>>  If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely
>> random bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon
>> went or whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view
>> that the information content is preserved, because you have all possible
>> outcomes and overall they cancel out (like in "Theory of nothing" but on a
>> smaller scale.)
>>
>>--
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>--
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscri

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[Richard Ruquist]

It seems that information is conserved in an MWI Math Space
where every possibility is known ahead of time;
whereas information is created, but energy conserved
in in a wave-collapse physical space.

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:59 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> This, I comprehend, I was just musing that why just keep the same concept
> of universes? Why not go tegmark, or trans tegmark, with this. Why not
> compare the super cosmos to be a data storing thing like a database, rather
> than an acorn, hold merely biological data? Since reality seems to be
> math(s) based, why not computational? Why not have a giant SAN, a storage
> area network, rather then just a random access memory with lower mem? Its
> just a conjecture from, and idiot, me, but since people like Seth Lloyd
> have conjectured that the universe does processing, I am dropping the other
> shoe on this.
>
> If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely
> random bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon
> went or whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view
> that the information content is preserved, because you have all possible
> outcomes and overall they cancel out (like in "Theory of nothing" but on a
> smaller scale.)
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: LizR 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 9:59 pm
> Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
>
>   On 20 November 2014 12:04, spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one, in
>> which the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a new
>> clone, like an amoeba does. Perhaps there are universes that split off when
>> a decision gets made where, where it is analogous to a data file. If this
>> is so, then part of the multiverse is a relational database. Call it
>> Oracle-1 Delta Googleplex. I have dibbs on the name. Patent Pending!
>>
>>  If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely
> random bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon
> went or whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view
> that the information content is preserved, because you have all possible
> outcomes and overall they cancel out (like in "Theory of nothing" but on a
> smaller scale.)
>
>   --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[Richard Ruquist]

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:04 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one, in
> which the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a new
> clone, like an amoeba does. Perhaps there are universes that split off when
> a decision gets made where, where it is analogous to a data file. If this
> is so, then part of the multiverse is a relational database. Call it
> Oracle-1 Delta Googleplex. I have dibbs on the name. Patent Pending!
>
> Collapse also doesn't conserve information. It generates new information -
> the specific way in which the collapse occurred, which adds some random
> bits to a value one could be constructing, and in any case adds that new
> state to the universe. Only the MWI preserves information afaics, by having
> the wave not collapse.
>
>
>
>

Bruno proved that information is not conserved. Collapse conserves energy.

>
> -Original Message-
> From: LizR 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 5:39 pm
> Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy
>
>  Collapse also doesn't conserve information. It generates new information
> - the specific way in which the collapse occurred, which adds some random
> bits to a value one could be constructing, and in any case adds that new
> state to the universe. Only the MWI preserves information afaics, by having
> the wave not collapse.
>
>   --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?

[Richard Ruquist]

You cannot really believe that coherency controls your life.??

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:56 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Richard Ruquist 
> wrote:
>
> > In MWI it is rather difficult to reverse time and unsplit the universe.
>>
>
> Reversing time and unspliting universes are not the same thing. When a
> electron passes 2 slits the universe splits, when they hit the photographic
> plate (or a brick wall) they unsplit, but time does not reverse. Many
> Worlds is not needed to explain time's arrow.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[Richard Ruquist]

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 19 Nov 2014, at 18:41, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 19 Nov 2014, at 17:06, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 18 Nov 2014, at 18:34, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Maybe Schrodinger's Wave Equation doesn't interfere either, only
>>>>> other worlds do,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > ?
>>>>
>>> !
>>>
>>> >> and maybe the wave equation is just a way, and certainly not the only
>>>>> way, humans have of describing that interference between worlds.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Indeed,
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then why the "?" ?
>>>
>>>
>>> Probably because I did not parse well the sentence above, and the term
>>> "world" is a but fuzzy in this context. But I guess we are OK.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > You know positivist physicians still alive? Who?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Every physicist alive uses both Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's
>>> Wave;
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, and other pictures and formulations of QM too.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> none use Positivism or any other school of philosophy because no
>>> philosophical franchise is of the slightest help in doing what scientists
>>> want to do, figure out how the world works.
>>>
>>>
>>> I disagree. The collapse axiom, which is still in amost textbook, and
>>> which is used by bad pedagog to avoid hard question, is a philosophical
>>> axiom relying on a religious belief: the belief that there is only one
>>> physical universe, and that we are unique.
>>>
>>
>> The collapse hypothesis is correct if we need to conserve the total
>> energy and information in the universe.
>>
>>
>> From quasi zero information, you can generate without adding any
>> information, all informations. Just split an observer and put them in front
>> of 1 or 0, and repeat. Similarly, the MW (quantum) view of the vacuum
>> generates all the physically consistent possibilities, without spending one
>> bit. The collapse seems on the contrary to generate bit from nothing. But
>> the collapse is only in the eye of the partial subsystem, as we can read of
>> (the diaries) of the observer in the terms of the waves (this in any base).
>> I suspect it is like that for energy too.
>>
>
>
> Since MWI is deterministic, all possibilities that can possibly ever
> happen can be known ahead of time and stored in a 4 dimensional space for
> each universe. The actual physical space is recorded and embedded as causal
> lines in the 4D mathematical space. Quantum mechanic random selections
> during energy-conserving wave collapse make those lines fuzzy, but
> distinct, for the most part.
>
>
> The problem is that I cannot even understand what is the collapse, doubly
> so in the relativistic context, and it seems to me that it uses a lot of
> energy, because it erases a lot of information.
>

Wave collapse only conserves energy if the energy and its information can
be moved almost instantly from quantum state to quantum state. All of the
available energy is required say in the double slit experiment to put the
original photon back together. I have suggested that if wave functions act
like BECs, then BECs may be the basis a valid wave-collapse 'mechanizm'.
Richard

>
> I have not yet seen a theory of collapse which makes sense. It is like
> saying that when an observer look a particle, suddenly QM get wrong, when
> QM explains exactly what happens, and why the observers will believe at
> first sight to collapse a wave.
>
> (and then my point is that if we use computationalism in that reasoning,
> as Everett did, we have to justify the wave itself, from a refinement of
> the relation between machine and their mind). We must explain why an
> universal unitary transformation (rotation) win the measure game at the
> bottom. We need the equivalent of Gleason theorem for some classes of
> number relation. I am open to the idea that string theory can give clues,
> but then the Monster munshine itself must be explained in term of the
> material hypostases. Theoretical Physics looks too much already to Number
> Theory, but with computationa

Re: Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?

[Richard Ruquist]

In MWI it is rather difficult to reverse time and unsplit the universe.
It's not Hermitian
Richard

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:40 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Russell Standish 
> wrote:
>
> >> I'd say that by about 1850 when people started to have a understanding
>>> of what Entropy was physicists had all they needed to have known that the
>>> universe must have started out in a very very low entropy state, that is to
>>> say they could have predicted the Big Bang in the early to mid 19th
>>> century; and they wouldn't have needed to go near a telescope to do so. But
>>> unfortunately they didn't, it's one of the great failures of nerve or
>>> imagination in the history of science.
>>>
>>
>> > Boltzmann indeed predicted a low entropy state sometime in the past.
>
>
> Yes but  Boltzmann thought that you could ignore boundary conditions and
> the second law of thermodynamics alone was enough to logically deduce that
> in the distant past the universe must have been in a very low entropy
> state, but in 1876 Loschmidt pointed out that Boltzman was wrong about
> that, he said you can't deduce a irreversible process, like the increase of
> entropy, from classical dynamics alone because if you just reverse the
> velocity of the particles in high entropy state B it will evolve back into
> the low entropy state A that produced it.  And knowing that there are
> VASTLY more high entropy states than low entropy states and asked what
> state produced the stat we're in now you'd have to answer that it was
> almost certainly one of those enormously numerous high entropy states
> UNLESS you made a further assumption, the past hypothesis, the idea that
> the universe must have started out in a very very low entropy state.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[Richard Ruquist]

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 19 Nov 2014, at 16:44, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 19 Nov 2014, at 05:18, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>  On 11/18/2014 4:57 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>  On 19 November 2014 06:45, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>  On 11/18/2014 5:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  On 17 Nov 2014, at 21:13, meekerdb wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 11/17/2014 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> The bible explains better (if we assume it is correct)
>>>
>>>
>>> And if it isn't correct it doesn't explain anything.  Which is why
>>> science seeks to test correctness prior to explanatory power.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Ideally, or FAPP, perhaps.
>>>
>>>  But fundamentally, science cannot test correctness, not even define it
>>> properly.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Are you saying that a theory cannot be tested an found incorrect??
>>>
>>>
>> I would think the obvious way to parse what Bruno has said here is
>> "science cannot show that something is correct".
>>
>>
>> Is that right, Bruno?
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course empirical tests are better at showing a theory is wrong than
>> showing it's right, which is Popper's observation.
>>
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm curious as to how you define correctness properly?
>>
>>
>> I can't do it for myself, nor can any machine do it for herself. But a
>> "sufficiently strong" machine can do it for a lesser strong machine. You
>> can define arithmetical truth and PA's correctness in the set theory ZF for
>> example. In that case "correctness" is defined in the manner of Tarski: p
>> is correct if it is the case that p is satisfied by this or that
>> mathematical structure, (for RA and PA, you can use the usual (N,+, *)
>> structure, and with computationalism, that arithmetical truth (not
>> definable in arithmetic) is enough).
>>
>>
> This sounds like a description of which mathematical theories suggest the
> existence of higher more-correct selves.
>
>
> Not more correct, but knowing much more things. ZF knows that PA is
> consistent, and ZF knows much more than PA about arithmetic, although of
> course we still don't know if ZF knows the truth or the falsity of Riemann
> hypothesis, but few doubt that ZF has any doubt about it.
>
> Note that ZFC (ZF + the axiom of choice) does not know any more than ZF.
> The axiom of choice has no consequences for arithmetic. (That is not
> entirely easy to prove, but is a good exercise if you know Gödel's
> constructible sets).
>
> By Gödel's theorem, arithmetical truth is no exhaustible, so all machines
> are superseded by other machines, and in fact this remains true for the
> machine invoking Oracles (divine being which are supposed to know the
> answer of Pi_1, Sigma_2, ...  questions (by divine I just mean here non
> computable, yet well definite in the standard model of arithmetic (true or
> false).
>
> ZF + kappa knows much more thing than ZF. In fact ZF + kappa believes that
> ZF is consistent. And ZF+kappa believes vastly much more than ZF about
> arithmetic, but is still under the jug of incompleteness, and the
> hypostases apply to PA, ZF, ZFC, ZF+kappa, etc. (Assuming ZF+kappa is
> consistent).
>
> You can't be "more correct", as you are correct, or not. But the spectrum
> of what you can believe in arithmetic can be very different. The whole of
> the computable, Turing universality, is equivalent with Sigma_1 complete.
> RA is already sigma_1 complete, and is quite humble in her arithmetical
> knowledge. From PA and the extension, you have the Löbianity (PA is not
> only sigma_1 complete, but PA knows that it/he/she is sigma_1 complete, and
> it knows the plausible reason why it has to be humble with respect to the
> arithmetical truth, on which it can only point, without explicit
> definition).
>
> Sigma_1 completeness, the ability to prove all true sentences having the
> shape ExP(x), with P recursive/decidable, is universal with respect to
> computability, but is very humble with respect of provability, and there is
> no "universal provability" notion: all provability predicate or machine can
> be extended (even mechanically) to a more powerful machine, where
> powerfulness is measure in term of classes of arithmetical propositions.
> There is just no complete theor

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[Richard Ruquist]

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 19 Nov 2014, at 17:06, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 18 Nov 2014, at 18:34, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>> >> Maybe Schrodinger's Wave Equation doesn't interfere either, only
>>>> other worlds do,
>>>>
>>>
>>> > ?
>>>
>> !
>>
>> >> and maybe the wave equation is just a way, and certainly not the only
>>>> way, humans have of describing that interference between worlds.
>>>>
>>>
>>> > Indeed,
>>>
>>
>> Then why the "?" ?
>>
>>
>> Probably because I did not parse well the sentence above, and the term
>> "world" is a but fuzzy in this context. But I guess we are OK.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > You know positivist physicians still alive? Who?
>>>
>>
>> Every physicist alive uses both Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's
>> Wave;
>>
>>
>> OK, and other pictures and formulations of QM too.
>>
>>
>>
>> none use Positivism or any other school of philosophy because no
>> philosophical franchise is of the slightest help in doing what scientists
>> want to do, figure out how the world works.
>>
>>
>> I disagree. The collapse axiom, which is still in amost textbook, and
>> which is used by bad pedagog to avoid hard question, is a philosophical
>> axiom relying on a religious belief: the belief that there is only one
>> physical universe, and that we are unique.
>>
>
> The collapse hypothesis is correct if we need to conserve the total energy
> and information in the universe.
>
>
> From quasi zero information, you can generate without adding any
> information, all informations. Just split an observer and put them in front
> of 1 or 0, and repeat. Similarly, the MW (quantum) view of the vacuum
> generates all the physically consistent possibilities, without spending one
> bit. The collapse seems on the contrary to generate bit from nothing. But
> the collapse is only in the eye of the partial subsystem, as we can read of
> (the diaries) of the observer in the terms of the waves (this in any base).
> I suspect it is like that for energy too.
>


Since MWI is deterministic, all possibilities that can possibly ever happen
can be known ahead of time and stored in a 4 dimensional space for each
universe. The actual physical space is recorded and embedded as causal
lines in the 4D mathematical space. Quantum mechanic random selections
during energy-conserving wave collapse make those lines fuzzy, but
distinct, for the most part.
Richard

>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> Richard
>
>
>>
>> Some physicists used it as a rule of thumb, and as a way to not do
>> philosophy, but of course, that is eventually like a use of God-gap type of
>> explanation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In math and physics, it is frequent that two apparantly different
>>> theories are equivalent,
>>>
>>
>> Yes, just like Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's Wave, they both
>> tell a story with a identical plot they just use different symbols in the
>> vocabulary of mathematics to do so,  just as 2 books about World War 2 tell
>> the same story but use different symbols in the vocabulary of the English
>> language to do it; however neither book about World War 2, no matter how
>> good, is World War 2. I said it before but it's worth repeating, maybe we
>> should take seriously and think through the implications of what
>> mathematicians have been saying for years, mathematics is a language.
>>
>>
>> Mathematics use a mathematical language, but is not a language itself.
>> You can use different language to describe a similar mathematical reality.
>> You can use the combinators, or the sets, to *represent* the natural
>> numbers, and admit quite different axioms, but you will get the same facts,
>> for example that the number of ways to write an odd natural number as a sum
>> of four square is given by 24 times the sum of its odd divisor. Like the
>> product scalar does not depend of the orthonormal base, in linear algebra,
>> the truth of the arithmetical statements do not depend on the theory and
>> language used to describe them. It is the same for computer science, which
>> is actually a branch of number theory. Some machines will stop on some
>> input independently of the language used to describe tho

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[Richard Ruquist]

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 18 Nov 2014, at 18:34, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> >> Maybe Schrodinger's Wave Equation doesn't interfere either, only other
>>> worlds do,
>>>
>>
>> > ?
>>
> !
>
> >> and maybe the wave equation is just a way, and certainly not the only
>>> way, humans have of describing that interference between worlds.
>>>
>>
>> > Indeed,
>>
>
> Then why the "?" ?
>
>
> Probably because I did not parse well the sentence above, and the term
> "world" is a but fuzzy in this context. But I guess we are OK.
>
>
>
>
> > You know positivist physicians still alive? Who?
>>
>
> Every physicist alive uses both Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's
> Wave;
>
>
> OK, and other pictures and formulations of QM too.
>
>
>
> none use Positivism or any other school of philosophy because no
> philosophical franchise is of the slightest help in doing what scientists
> want to do, figure out how the world works.
>
>
> I disagree. The collapse axiom, which is still in amost textbook, and
> which is used by bad pedagog to avoid hard question, is a philosophical
> axiom relying on a religious belief: the belief that there is only one
> physical universe, and that we are unique.
>

The collapse hypothesis is correct if we need to conserve the total energy
and information in the universe.
Richard


>
> Some physicists used it as a rule of thumb, and as a way to not do
> philosophy, but of course, that is eventually like a use of God-gap type of
> explanation.
>
>
>
>
> > In math and physics, it is frequent that two apparantly different
>> theories are equivalent,
>>
>
> Yes, just like Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's Wave, they both
> tell a story with a identical plot they just use different symbols in the
> vocabulary of mathematics to do so,  just as 2 books about World War 2 tell
> the same story but use different symbols in the vocabulary of the English
> language to do it; however neither book about World War 2, no matter how
> good, is World War 2. I said it before but it's worth repeating, maybe we
> should take seriously and think through the implications of what
> mathematicians have been saying for years, mathematics is a language.
>
>
> Mathematics use a mathematical language, but is not a language itself. You
> can use different language to describe a similar mathematical reality. You
> can use the combinators, or the sets, to *represent* the natural numbers,
> and admit quite different axioms, but you will get the same facts, for
> example that the number of ways to write an odd natural number as a sum of
> four square is given by 24 times the sum of its odd divisor. Like the
> product scalar does not depend of the orthonormal base, in linear algebra,
> the truth of the arithmetical statements do not depend on the theory and
> language used to describe them. It is the same for computer science, which
> is actually a branch of number theory. Some machines will stop on some
> input independently of the language used to describe those machines and
> input.
>
>
>
>
>
> > but that does not make the thing described into a convention or
>> language.
>>
>
> True. A electron is not a  convention or a language, but what about a
> description of the electron written in a particular dialect of the language
> of mathematics, like the Schrodinger Wave Equation? Yes Schrodinger's
> Equation does a good job describing the behavior of a electron, but Dirac's
> Equation does better, and Feynman's sum over histories even better.  And
> some equations do a terrible job describing the electron even though the
> are grammatically correct sentences in the language of mathematics, that is
> to say they are logically self consistent.  So maybe you can not only write
> true descriptions of the electron in the language of mathematics maybe you
> can also write the equivalent of a Harry Potter novel in the language of
> mathematics. Maybe Cantor's infinities and the Real Numbers are
> mathematical Harry Potter novels. Actually I kinda doubt it but maybe.
>
>
> Sure. but may be electron are only useful fiction to get the voltage right
> for the working of my fridge. Here math and physics are alike, and it asks
> some familiarity with the subject to develop an intuition of what might be
> conventional and what might be a deep truth independent of the subject.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On the contrary, it points on something real beyond the language.
>>
>
> But that's exactly what I was getting at, maybe it points to something
> real beyond the mathematics.
>
>
> I was meaning "it points on something real and mathematical beyond the
> language.
>
>
>
>
> I don't insist that is true, maybe mathematics is more than just a
> language, but maybe not, I believe it's worth thinking about. Unlike
> philosophers who are always certain but seldom correct I just don't know.
>
>
> The choice of a theory might be conventional, but some truth will not
> depend on that choic

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[Richard Ruquist]

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 19 Nov 2014, at 05:18, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 11/18/2014 4:57 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 19 November 2014 06:45, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 11/18/2014 5:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>>  On 17 Nov 2014, at 21:13, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>  On 11/17/2014 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> The bible explains better (if we assume it is correct)
>>
>>
>> And if it isn't correct it doesn't explain anything.  Which is why
>> science seeks to test correctness prior to explanatory power.
>>
>>
>>  Ideally, or FAPP, perhaps.
>>
>>  But fundamentally, science cannot test correctness, not even define it
>> properly.
>>
>>
>>  Are you saying that a theory cannot be tested an found incorrect??
>>
>>
> I would think the obvious way to parse what Bruno has said here is
> "science cannot show that something is correct".
>
>
> Is that right, Bruno?
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
> Of course empirical tests are better at showing a theory is wrong than
> showing it's right, which is Popper's observation.
>
>
> Indeed.
>
>
>
> I'm curious as to how you define correctness properly?
>
>
> I can't do it for myself, nor can any machine do it for herself. But a
> "sufficiently strong" machine can do it for a lesser strong machine. You
> can define arithmetical truth and PA's correctness in the set theory ZF for
> example. In that case "correctness" is defined in the manner of Tarski: p
> is correct if it is the case that p is satisfied by this or that
> mathematical structure, (for RA and PA, you can use the usual (N,+, *)
> structure, and with computationalism, that arithmetical truth (not
> definable in arithmetic) is enough).
>
>
This sounds like a description of which mathematical theories suggest the
existence of higher more-correct selves.
Richard



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

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

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

[Richard Ruquist]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Alberto G. Corona 
> wrote:
>
>> As Nicolás Gómez Dávila said (more or less): The modern man indulge
>> itself thinking that he is a mechanism, but protest loudly when he is
>> treated as such.
>>
>
> I would argue that Gödel provides some excuse for this apparently
> paradoxical behaviour.
>

Is that because Godel has explained that our system, whatever it is,
Is open to the input of truth, whatever, from more complete systems
that we are embedded in..

>
>
>>
>> 2014-11-15 18:39 GMT+01:00, zibb...@gmail.com :
>> > I know this comes up a lot, so there's a risk this guy isn't saying
>> > anything new here, but I browsed and decided to view the video and
>> thought
>> > I'd throw it out in case anyone else wants to enter that process.
>> >
>> > Here's the first few paragraphs, linke at bottom. Edge basically.
>> >
>> > *THE MYTH OF AI*
>> >
>> > A lot of us were appalled a few years ago when the American Supreme
>> Court
>> > decided, out of the blue, to decide a question it hadn't been asked to
>> > decide, and declare that corporations are people. That's a cover for
>> making
>> >
>> > it easier for big money to have an influence in politics. But there's
>> > another angle to it, which I don't think has been considered as much:
>> the
>> > tech companies, which are becoming the most profitable, the fastest
>> rising,
>> >
>> > the richest companies, with the most cash on hand, are essentially
>> people
>> > for a different reason than that. They might be people because the
>> Supreme
>> > Court said so, but they're essentially algorithms.
>> >
>> > If you look at a company like Google or Amazon and many others, they do
>> a
>> > little bit of device manufacture, but the only reason they do is to
>> create
>> > a channel between people and algorithms. And the algorithms run on these
>> > big cloud computer facilities.
>> >
>> > The distinction between a corporation and an algorithm is fading. Does
>> that
>> >
>> > make an algorithm a person? Here we have this interesting confluence
>> > between two totally different worlds. We have the world of money and
>> > politics and the so-called conservative Supreme Court, with this other
>> > world of what we can call artificial intelligence, which is a movement
>> > within the technical culture to find an equivalence between computers
>> and
>> > people. In both cases, there's an intellectual tradition that goes back
>> > many decades. Previously they'd been separated; they'd been worlds
>> apart.
>> > Now, suddenly they've been intertwined.
>> >
>> > The idea that computers are people has a long and storied history. It
>> goes
>> > back to the very origins of computers, and even from before. There's
>> always
>> >
>> > been a question about whether a program is something alive or not since
>> it
>> > intrinsically has some kind of autonomy at the very least, or it
>> wouldn't
>> > be a program. There has been a domineering subculture—that's been the
>> most
>> > wealthy, prolific, and influential subculture in the technical
>> world—that
>> > for a long time has not only promoted the idea that there's an
>> equivalence
>> > between algorithms and life, and certain algorithms and people, but a
>> > historical determinism that we're inevitably making computers that will
>> be
>> > smarter and better than us and will take over from us
>> >
>> > http://edge.org/conversation/the-myth-of-ai
>> >
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups
>> > "Everything List" group.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> an
>> > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alberto.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything 

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[Richard Ruquist]

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 15 Nov 2014, at 17:02, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Richard Ruquist 
> wrote:
>
> > Along these lines of thought, the universe splitting or differentiation
>> in MWI is said to be irreversible
>> even though the equation of QM are time reversible.
>>
>
> The Many Worlds split is not necessarily irreversible, but like
> thermodynamics it usually is. When the electron approaches the 2 slits the
> universe splits, but  when it hits the photographic plate (or just a brick
> wall) the split is reversed; of course that is not a typical situation, it
> was specifically set up by experimenters to be as simple as possible, in
> most situations they never recombine because so many things would have to
> conspire together it would be astronomically unlikely.
>
> > That might account for the arrow of time.
>>
>
> You don't need Many Worlds or even Quantum Mechanics to explain the arrow
> of time, all you need is for things to start out in a low entropy state and
> the fact that there are VASTLY more ways to be disorganized than organized.
>
> > Of course wave collapse is also irreversible and is similar to MWI to
>> that extent.
>>
>
> You keep talking as if the quantum wave function is a real physical thing
> rather than just a calculating device like the lines of longitude and
> latitude,  but Quantum Mechanics can get along just fine without
> Schrodinger's Wave Equation.
>
>
> Latitudes and longitudes do not interfere.
>
>
>
> In fact about 9 months BEFORE Schrodinger came out with his wave equation
> Heisenberg had his own version of Quantum Mechanics that had nothing to do
> with waves. In fact Heisenberg despised the Schrodinger Wave Equation
> because he felt that "a good theory must be based on directly observable
> magnitudes". And nobody can observe a quantum wave function.
>
>
> Heisenberg was influenced by the positivism of the time (The Vienna
> circles, the young Wittgenstein, etc.). That was very bad philosophy, and
> we can say that is is virtually abandoned. Positivism is easily shown
> self-defeating or just an instrumentalism which abandon fundamental
> research.
>
>
>
>
> If you measure what a particle is doing at point X Heisenberg could use
> matrix algebra to tell you what measurements you are likely to get at point
> Y, and he could do it all without using a unobservable wave, he only used
> measured quantities .  Heisenberg's original formulation of Quantum
> Mechanics works just as well as Schrodinger and his Wave Equation, they are
> equivalent, and which one you use is strictly a matter of taste.
>
> The only advantage Schrodinger had is that it allowed human beings to form
> a mental picture of what is going on, but Heisenberg felt that the mental
> picture was wrong and the quantum world was so strange that none was any
> better, so it would be best to just forget about visualization and only
> worry about what you can measure.  Everett disagreed and thought that
> mental pictures were important but agreed that Schrodinger's was wrong,
> however he believed that he had found a better one and so do I.
>
>
> ? he agreed that Schroedinger was wrong when saying that he was sure that
> the cat is definitely alive or dead. But Everett agrees with schroedinger
> equation, and picture. But Deutsch and Hayden argues that the many-world
> picture, and its locality, are more simply explained in the Heisenberg
> picture. Those are different formalism for the same theory (as long as we
> don't introduce the collapse, which is just a magical trick to eliminate
> the "parallel realities". of course, with computationalism, the "other
> realities" exists like numbers, so it is just dishonest to make abstraction
> of them, without making precise some selection principle (and the UDA shows
> that such a selection principle is contradictory with the computationalist
> assumption).
>

Sorry to be disagreeable but many many-world  adherents still claim the
total energy in the multiverse is conserved
and if so wave collapse is necessary from quantum mechanics of particle
energy conservation.
That it preserves a single world universe is a by product.

>
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group a

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[Richard Ruquist]

zibbsey,

Same here. I hypothesize a collection of intelligent black holes can
communicate with each other over classical bridges, but only one bridge at
a time per black hole..  Well really it takes two black holes to focus
their "entanglement entropy" EEin on each other or on the same
interconnecting bridge; to communicate classically (like talking)  instead
of quantum mechanically, which is fraught with randomness and information
gets scrambled.

Each black hole is multiply-connected to other black holes and the EEin is
proportional to the cross sectional area of the ith bridge on the nth black
hole. So the black hole chooses to squeeze all its bridge connections
except one to communicate classically instead of quantum mechanically
across the selected bridge.

It all comes from this one paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf
which proves that classical bridges have to have monogamous EPR
correlations.
which just means that blacks holes can only talk to each other one on one,
which means black holes need to activate the bridges just one at a time,
which means black holes must be intelligent to have that ability???

Richard

On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 9:24 PM,  wrote:

>
>
> On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:04:29 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:
>>
>> Zipsey,
>>
>> If you care to understand how black communicate with each other, read
>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf.
>> clem
>>
>
> Thanks for that. It's good work. A classic case of how Science to now has
> succeeded. The theory is good and robust. Backs off onto good robust
> foundations. All of it totally wrong but nevertheless directly connected
> with objective reality as if they had been correct theories. All very
> mysterious. Unless you happen to be in my strange circumstances. I know
> already how they communicate and what drives the evolution of that. And
> what it means and how it affects us.
>
> I know this, the same way I know their theory is wrong yet objectively
> wired as true. All of these things I know because I have access to a medium
> of knowledge that no one else on Earth has. The medium is knowledge -
> objectively true knowledge - with the power to inform me whether or not I
> am bullshitting out a shaggy story.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[Richard Ruquist]

Zipsey,

If you care to understand how black communicate with each other, read
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf.
clem

On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 4:46 PM,  wrote:

>
>
> On Saturday, November 15, 2014 9:36:57 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, November 15, 2014 4:57:14 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:23 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>>
>>> > "The numbers of ways the system could have gotten to the way it is"
 isn't the usual formulation
>>>
>>>
>>> If you want to say that Entropy is proportional to the number of
>>> microstates that produce the same macrostate then it's also proportional to
>>> the number of precursor states.
>>>
>>> > and I think it's ambiguous.  In general there are arbitrarily many
 possible histories and different possible starting points.

>>>
>>> Unless you're talking about hypothetical new physics there are not
>>> arbitrarily many previous states that could have produced the present
>>> state, just a astronomical number.
>>>
>>> > Boltzmann's formulation was the logarithm of the numbers of possible
 states consistent with constraints defining the system, e.g. its total
 kinetic energy

>>>
>>> Entropy is inversely proportional to work not kinetic energy. A box of
>>> gas may have a lot of kinetic energy because all the atoms in it are moving
>>> around  at high speed, but they're all moving in different directions,
>>> Entropy is a measure of how well all that activity can be translated into
>>> moving something in just one direction (work). The higher the Entropy the
>>> less work you can get out of it with the same heat sink
>>>
>>> > In the case of a BH the constraints are its classical defining
 parameters: mass, angular momentum, and electric charge.

>>>
>>> Yes, a Black Hole is the simplest macroscopic thing in the universe,
>>> just 3 numbers tells you all there is to know about a particular one; but
>>> there are a gargantuan number of ways that Black Hole could have formed,
>>> perhaps it was made by putting a lot of sand together in one place, or
>>> encyclopedias or too many puppy dogs, it doesn't matter. And that's why
>>> Black Holes have such a enormous Entropy.
>>>
>>
>>  Would you help me to understand this?
>>
>> It's just that I'm seeing the number of ways a black hole could have
>> formed as a non-physical conception that depends some kind of
>> information deficit across the event horizon.
>>
>> Like, if I have special information...like maybe a theorythat
>> eliminates 50 percent of the ways a specific black hole could have formed,
>> by some process of elimination. The entropy should now physically read half
>> what it did to start with.
>>
>
> Isn't this an approach on what Susskind contributes as the holographic
> principle (or as what then leads to that)
>
> Along with the time invariant term in that equation...that has the outside
> observer see the falling man freeze at the event horizon as a badly mangled
> splodge of subatomic fragmentation.
>
> That then acts as the informational record of everything that goes inside.
> Which makes Hawking look like a right plum circa 1985
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   John K Clark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Classically there is no finer grained description, so that's what seems
>>> to make BH entropy more fundamental that the usual thermodynamic system.
>>>

 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

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

Re: "Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo"

[Richard Ruquist]

Russell's 'nothing/everything duality' reminds me of one mechanism in
string theory
by which a nearly Planck scale point reflects the entire outside universe
within itself in a r->1/r transformation, that point being each Calabi_yau
compact manifold.
Richard

On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Russell Standish 
wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:27:50PM -0800, Peter Sas wrote:
> > Hi Russell, thanks for your answer... I will definitely give your book a
> > closer reading in the near future, if I can get my poor philosopher's
> head
> > to understand the mathematics :)
> >
> > I hope you don't mind answering some questions in advance. You wrote:
> >
>
> No - it's a good question. Hopefully my answer makes sense.
>
>
> > Exactly. The source of the symmetry breaking is the action of an
> >
> > > observer. Symmetry is restored by considering all other observers out
> > > there in the "Nothing"-verse (more commonly called the Plenitude).
> > >
> >
> > This what I don't get: How can there already exist observers (or at least
> > one observer) prior to the symmetry breaking, given that it is this
> > breaking that turns zero-info into info? In other words: if you already
> > presuppose an observer, your Nothing is not absolutely nothing... it is
> an
> > observed nothing, but in my view we can't even presuppose an observer if
> we
> > want to answer Leibniz' question by starting from nothing...  I admit
> there
> > is some paradox involved in imagining a 'situation' in which nothing
> > exists, not even an observer... we have to imagine a situation where we
> > ourselves do not exist... to some extent that's impossible of course...
> > after all, I have to exist in order to imagine my own non-existencee...
> so
> > some observer is always pressupposed (Kan would call this the
> > transcendental subject)... but in my view we can't let that presupposed
> > observer interact with the original nothing to cause symmetry
> > breakingHow do you think about this?
> >
>
> You are imagining things temporally, which is inappropriate here.
>
> Once we conflate Nothing and Everything - that is the point of the
> discussion about the mathematical notion of duality - then it is clear
> that the Everything contains observers, observing their own points of
> view, since the Everything, well, contains everything (at least every
> possible thing).
>
> Whilst Nothing (and Everything) is perfectly symmetric, the observers'
> points of view are not. The act of observation has broken the
> symmetry. The symmetry breaking is "spontaneous", for same reason as
> Bruno's
> FPI is random.
>
> Thus my mantra, which has become something of a quotable quote:
> "Something is the inside view of Nothing".
>
> Now this might seem quite different to the physicists notion of
> spontaneous symmetry breaking - eg the direction of the magnetic field
> when a ferromagnetic material is cooled below it's Curie point - but if
> you think in Multiverse terms it is the same thing. The act of
> observing the magnetic material means the magnetic material is in some
> direction. Somewhere else in the Multiverse, there is an observer
> seeing the magnetic field in the opposite direction.
>
> Cheers
>
> --
>
>
> 
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
>  Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
>  (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)
>
> 
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[Richard Ruquist]

The Hamiltonian for the process of de

On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:27 PM, John Clark  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Russell Standish 
> wrote:
>
> > The Multiverse equivalent of conservation of energy is unitarity of the
>> evolution of Schroedinger's equation. Or equivalently, that the
>> Hamiltonian is Hermitian.
>>
>
The Hamiltonian for the process of universe differentiation or splitting
has to be Hermitian as well.

Or to put it more simply, it you use your theory to add up all the
> probabilities about what particle X is going to do it had better equal 1,
> if it's less than 1 then the theory is incomplete it it's greater than 1
> then it's ridiculous. Many World's passes that test, but to be honest so do
> a lot of other quantum interpretations.
>
> > I also like to point out that unitarity is also equivalent to
>> conservation of information
>
>
> Yes, and that's why it's so important to figure out if a Black Hole really
> does destroy information; it probably doesn't but if it does then a lot of
> physics is going to need to change.
>

The Black hole may leak information over an er-epr Bridge that requires a
black hole to operate anyway. ;)
http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0289


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

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

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[Richard Ruquist]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Russell Standish 
wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 05:14:24PM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> >
> > But QM equations are time reversible, The differentiation of the universe
> > is not
>
> Your point being?
>
>
> Differentiation may not be unitary

> --
>
>
> 
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
>  Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
>  (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)
>
> 
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[Richard Ruquist]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Russell Standish 
wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 01:33:15PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014  Richard Ruquist  wrote:
> >
> > > OK, I will accept that information cannot be communicated faster than
> the
> > > speed of light. However, even in single particle EPR experiments MWI
> > > requires the creation of two particles for every one particle. That
> doubles
> > > the energy requirement. Considering the total number of particles
> created
> > > in the huge number of interactions resulting in what MWI calls new
> > > universes, where does all this extra energy come from. Personally I
> prefer
> > > to believe in the conservation of energy than MWI.
> > >
> >
> > The conservation of energy is not a law of logic, according to Noether's
> > theorem it's just the result of the laws of physics remaining the same
> > during different times, and in any universe where physical law is the
> same
> > in different parts of it there must be a law of conservation of momentum.
> > The laws of physics remain the same in different regions of spacetime in
> > our universe so we have both those conservations laws, but there is no
> > reason to think they would remain the same throughout the entire
> > multiverse, and thus no reason to think those conservation laws are
> > fundamental.
>
> The Multiverse equivalent of conservation of energy is unitarity of
> the evolution of Schroedinger's equation. Or equivalently, that the
> Hamiltonian is Hermitian.
>

But QM equations are time reversible, The differentiation of the universe
is not

>
> I also like to point out that unitarity is also equivalent to
> conservation of information, or in other words "if something can
> happen, it will happen, somewhere in the Multiverse".
>
> Cheers
> --
>
>
> 
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
>  Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
>  (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)
>
> 
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

[Richard Ruquist]

Along these lines of thought, the universe splitting or differentiation in
MWI is said to be irreversible
even though the equation of QM are time reversible. That might account for
the arrow of time.
Of course wave collapse is also irreversible and is similar to MWI to that
extent.

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 4:47 PM,  wrote:

>
>
> On Friday, November 14, 2014 9:30:00 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On 13 November 2014 18:57, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> > There appears to be a discrepancy between entropy as it is ascribed to
 black holes and entropy in the form of configurations of mass-energy far
 from thermodynamic equilibrium. Black hole entropy appears to be a
 fundamental feature of physics, while the other sort only emerges due to
 coarse graining. I'd be interested to know if anyone can shed any light on
 this apparent discrepancy.

>>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean that there are 2 types of Entropy, it always
>> works the same way. The Entropy of a Black Hole (and the Entropy of
>> anything else) is Boltzmann's  constant time the logarithm of the number of
>> ways the Black Hole could have gotten into the state it's in now. The
>> reason we use a logarithm in the definition is we want to be able to say
>> that the total Entropy of the combined system X and Y is the Entropy of X
>> PLUS the Entropy of Y,  if we didn't use logarithms it would be X times Y.
>> For example, if system X could have gotten to the way it is now in 3
>> different ways and system Y could have gotten to the way it is now in 5
>> different ways then the combined system could have gotten to the way it is
>> now in 3*5 =15 different ways, but ln 3 + ln 5 = ln 15.
>>
>> Any constant could be used but it is convenient to use Boltzmann's
>> constant because it's nice if Entropy is in units of energy/temperature.
>>
>
> this where you strong strong strong. But the other day you say big
> bang was consequence of entropy by 1851 as a direct consequence. You
> obviously have never been in a situation of new discovery to be saying
> that. People need masses of convergence and independence and linking and
> all kinds of shit to progress a long chain of consequences. Anyway, why
> would it have been rigourous in 1851 to say entropy was a universal when it
> might have been tied to the steam turbine? or when the sun seemed to burn
> forever and the cosmos seemed static and eternal.
>
>  I still quite fancy yer mind
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[Richard Ruquist]

In other words you do not know

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:33 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014  Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
> > OK, I will accept that information cannot be communicated faster than
>> the speed of light. However, even in single particle EPR experiments MWI
>> requires the creation of two particles for every one particle. That doubles
>> the energy requirement. Considering the total number of particles created
>> in the huge number of interactions resulting in what MWI calls new
>> universes, where does all this extra energy come from. Personally I prefer
>> to believe in the conservation of energy than MWI.
>>
>
> The conservation of energy is not a law of logic, according to Noether's
> theorem it's just the result of the laws of physics remaining the same
> during different times, and in any universe where physical law is the same
> in different parts of it there must be a law of conservation of momentum.
> The laws of physics remain the same in different regions of spacetime in
> our universe so we have both those conservations laws, but there is no
> reason to think they would remain the same throughout the entire
> multiverse, and thus no reason to think those conservation laws are
> fundamental.
>
> Of course there must be some sort of meta-laws we know nothing about that
> have always held true throughout the entire multiverse, and according to
> Noether if the laws are symmetrical with respect to time then there must be
> a corresponding conservation principle of some sort, for lack of a better
> name call it the law of conservation of meta-energy (what we think of as
> energy is just a special case of meta-energy); but we have no idea what
> those meta-laws are and even less understanding of what meta-energy could
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[Richard Ruquist]

OK, I will accept that information cannot be communicated faster than the
speed of light.
However, even in single particle EPR experiments MWI requires the creation
of two particles
for every one particle. That doubles the energy requirement.
Considering the total number of particles created in the huge number of
interactions
resulting in what MWI calls new universes, where does all this extra energy
come from.
Personally I prefer to believe in the conservation of energy than MWI.

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 10:27 AM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Richard Ruquist 
> wrote:
>
> > It has been proven that entangled BECs can transfer information
>> instantly or at least so much faster than the speed of light that time
>> delay cannot be detected.
>>
>
> That is incorrect. It's true that somethings can travel faster than light
> but information is not one of them, a Bose Einstein Condensate can't do it
> nor can anything else. What has been proven experimentally is that Bell's
> Inequality is violated, so there can no longer be any doubt that if things
> are realistic then things CAN influence each other over vast distances much
> faster than light, probably instantly. However influencing something is not
> the same as communicating with it. To transmit information you not only
> need to change things far away you also need a standard to measure that
> change by. Changing one apparently random thing into another apparently
> random thing isn't enough to send a message because you can only tell that
> it really wasn't random after all  by directly comparing the 2 things,  the
> send "message" and the receive "message", and that can only be done at the
> speed of light or less. So you can't use Morse code to send a message on a
> faster than light telegraph.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: "Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo"

[Richard Ruquist]

Since when are observers quantities?

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Russell Standish 
wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:32:05PM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Russell Standish <
> li...@hpcoders.com.au>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Exactly. The source of the symmetry breaking is the action of an
> > > observer. Symmetry is restored by considering all other observers out
> > > there in the "Nothing"-verse (more commonly called the Plenitude).
> > >
> >
> > How so. Most symmetries broke before any observers existed.
> >
>
> If you think of a Multiverse picture, there are no broken symmetries
> at any time. Just different universes for all the possible values that
> of the quantity that breaks the symmetry.
>
> You can equally consider the symmetry as been broken at precisely the
> moment an observer discovers which of those universes e lives in.
>
>
> --
>
>
> 
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
>  Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
>  (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)
>
> 
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: "Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo"

[Richard Ruquist]

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Russell Standish 
wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:38:55PM -0800, Peter Sas wrote:
> > I've read it... well I've read parts of it anyway... I downloaded a copy
> > from the net, I don't know if that's also the final book version of his
> > Theory of Nothing... The problem is I'm not too good with mathematical
> and
> > logical formalisms (I have dyscalculia, I mix the symbols up)... So what
> I
> > understood from Russell's book is rather limited, I'm sad to say...
> Anyway,
> > I printed a copy of Russell's book but it's storeda way now since we are
> in
> > the middle of moving... I intend to delve into Russell's book more
> > extensively later... What I gather from Russell is that he too starts
> with
> > an information-theoretic account of nothing I appreciate his argument
> > that an informational nothing is equivalent with a state of infinite
> > complexity (Babel's library) where it is impossible to find relevant info
> > and so the informational content is zero...
>
> You're close. Babel's library actually has zero complexity,
> essentially for the reason you state. What it has an infinite number
> of is books (which themselves are infinitely long). Actually, that is
> more descriptive of my "Nothing" - the literal Babel's library is
> actually finite (though astronomically huge), with finite length books.
>
> > It is unclear to me, however,
> > how he is able to derive reality from such a situation... Does Russell's
> > scheme, too, involve something like a spontaneous symmetry breaking of
> the
> > informational nothing?
> >
>
> Exactly. The source of the symmetry breaking is the action of an
> observer. Symmetry is restored by considering all other observers out
> there in the "Nothing"-verse (more commonly called the Plenitude).
>

How so. Most symmetries broke before any observers existed.

>
> > Op donderdag 13 november 2014 08:23:01 UTC+1 schreef Liz R:
> > >
> > > Have you read Russell's "Theory of Nothing" ? If not, it could give
> you a
> > > better handle on this sort of thing.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
>
>
> 
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
>  Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
>  (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)
>
> 
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[Richard Ruquist]

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:52 PM, LizR  wrote:

> How has it been proved that BECs can transfer information instantly?
>

By experiment

>
> There are alternative explanations for EPR correlations that don't involve
> information being transmitted faster than light, so it's possible the same
> is true of BECs.
>

Yes. Please tell me how GR is correct and QM is wrong, which is the case if
info was not transferred instantaneously.

>
>
> On 14 November 2014 13:24, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>> It has been proven that entangled BECs can transfer information instantly
>> or at least so much faster than the speed of light that time delay cannot
>> be detected.
>> The same is true for the entangled particles in the EPR experiment.
>> But BECs contain macro groups of particles that all act in concert
>> and share the same wave function.
>>
>> So if you perturb one BEC, its entangled neighboring BEC will instantly
>> react.
>> I am not sure if the reaction is the opposite as in EPR.
>>
>> My hypothesis is that wave collapse may be based on wave functions being
>> BECs.
>> How they may be BECs is another story.
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:54 PM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>> On 14 November 2014 11:20, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>>>
>>>> I believe that the why is because wavefunctions behave like entangled
>>>> BECs where information can be transferred instantly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It can? Please explain further. (Are you talking about EPR correlations?)
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[Richard Ruquist]

It has been proven that entangled BECs can transfer information instantly
or at least so much faster than the speed of light that time delay cannot
be detected.
The same is true for the entangled particles in the EPR experiment.
But BECs contain macro groups of particles that all act in concert
and share the same wave function.

So if you perturb one BEC, its entangled neighboring BEC will instantly
react.
I am not sure if the reaction is the opposite as in EPR.

My hypothesis is that wave collapse may be based on wave functions being
BECs.
How they may be BECs is another story.

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:54 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 14 November 2014 11:20, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>> I believe that the why is because wavefunctions behave like entangled
>> BECs where information can be transferred instantly.
>>
>
> It can? Please explain further. (Are you talking about EPR correlations?)
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[Richard Ruquist]

I believe that the why is because wavefunctions behave like entangled BECs
where information can be transferred instantly.
Richard

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 3:59 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Richard Ruquist 
> wrote:
>
> > Quantum mechanics does not allow for a " big messy smudge".
>>
>
> Everybody agrees about that, every exparament ever performed agrees with
> quantum mechanics,  but the question is why. You say the quantum wave
> function of a electron, or even that of a large Buckminsterfullerene
> molecule of 60 carbon atoms, goes through both slits, but that's like
> saying the Buckminsterfullerene guardian angel goes through both slits
> because the wave function is completely unobservable.  And even the wave
> function squared is just a probability.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[Richard Ruquist]

Quantum mechanics does not allow for a " big messy smudge".
The resulting photon must have the original frequency/energy.
IMO MWI allows for a " big messy smudge" only it cannot be 1p seen.

Besides a tremendous creation of energy is required to obtain discrete
photons
of original frequency in often a huge number of worlds.
I find that unbelievable.
Richard

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 3:04 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
>
> >> If, as many worlds says, everything that can happen does happen then
>>> clearly it can't all happen in the same place, some things must happen
>>> elsewhere. So when a photon (or electron) approaches the 2 slits the
>>> universe must split because different things are going to happen to the
>>> photon, it will split because the 2 universes will not be identical. And
>>> consciousness has nothing to do with it.
>>> The photon goes through the left slit and elsewhere, in another
>>> universe, it goes through the right slit. When the photon hits the
>>> photographic plate the photon is destroyed in both universes so there is no
>>> longer any difference between them and thus they merge back together into
>>> one universe, but the photon still has a memory of going through the left
>>> slit and a memory of going through the right slit and this produces the
>>> interference bands. It doesn't matter if anybody looks at the plate, in
>>> fact the same thing would happen is you substituted a brick wall for the
>>> photographic plate because the important thing is that the photon is
>>> destroyed not that somebody looked at something.
>>>
>>
>> > Such an account makes the notion of separate universes otiose.
>
>
> I disagree, the purpose is that Many World's doesn't have to explained why
> the wave function (which is unobservable) collapses because it never
> collapses; in fact in the many worlds theory the wave function is just a
> calculating device of no more physical reality than the lines of longitude
> and  latitude. In contrast it is the responsibility of Copenhagen to
> explain how why and when the wave function collapses, and it has never come
> close to doing so to my satisfaction. That's why I'm a many worlds fan.
>
> > It is much simpler to say that the photon is represented by a wave that
>> goes through both slits in this world, giving rise to interference patterns.
>>
>
> As Einstein said explanations should be as simple as possible but not
> simpler. If what you say above is correct then why is it that  if you fire
> just one electron at the 2 slits it makes a discrete dot on the
> photographic plate and not a big messy smudge as you'd expect if the
> electron were a wave?
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[Richard Ruquist]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:08 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 12 Nov 2014, at 09:07, LizR wrote:
>
> On 12 November 2014 20:32, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 11 Nov 2014, at 22:18, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>>  Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
 If I tell you that I have thrown a coin, and put a dollar in one of two
 boxes according to the tail/head outcome. Send a box in Washington, and one
 in Moscow, and you open the box in Moscow, and find no dollar in the box,
 you know instantaneously that the box in washington contain one dollar,
 without any transmission at the speed of light. Well, the MW makes the Bell
 inequality violation of that type. Instead of W or M; it is an infinite or
 on all the equivalent state to up up - down down singlet state. That is
 weird, but it is just QM's weirdness, and there is no transmission at a
 distance at all.
 Bruno

>>>
>>> Do you know John Bell's article called 'Bertlmann's socks'? He explains
>>> there why your example above can never be an illustration of the Bell
>>> inequalities.
>>>
>>
>> It assumes that experience leads to unique outcome, I think. In which
>> case that is correct, but this means he assumes some collapse. If there is
>> a collapse, Einstein already knew in 1927 that such a collapse needs to be
>> "non-local". Without collapse, the singlet state describes proportion of
>> correlated pairs of particles, and we get back to a local explanation
>> similar to the one I describe in the quote. It is important to see that
>> with the MW, a pure state still describe infinities of worlds/histories
>> (like computationalism makes also mandatory).
>>
>
> Bell also realised that his inequality could be explained, while
> preserving realism, locality and causality, by the quantum effects being
> measured obeying time symmetry. If I remember correctly, and rather oddly
> (given that the laws of physics governing the systems used to measure
> Bell's inequality are in fact time-symmetric), he thought this was too
> outrageous to be the correct explanation.
>
>
> Bell was quite conservative, and was hoping that Aspect would refute QM's
> non-locality.
>

Now I am confused. Is this a typo or are you admitting that QM is
non-local. Einstein's pinhole thought experiment seems to verify
non-locality.

After we exhaust this topic I would like to discuss Bose-Einstein
Condensates BECs where light can be stopped experimentally. That is the
speed of light is zero. And two separate but entangled BECs necessarily
contain identical information, so if you do something to one, the same
instantly happens to the other.
Richard




> In a sense, he was less conservative than Einstein, by seeming to accept
> non local hidden variable theory. I am as much conservative than Einstein,
> and consider that the abandon of locality is a bit like adding miracles and
> magic in the theory.
>
> Now, if there is only one branch, you will need very special initial (and
> final) boundary condition to make your symmetry usable, and I can
> understand that this might seem outrageous. But in the MW setting, that is
> no more shocking than determinacy + many-worlds. Clearly Bell was not very
> inclined to accept the MW aspect of QM.
>
> What we do loss with the Bell's inequality violation, is the
> counterfactual definiteness, but this is non-realist only for
> mono-worlders, I think.
>
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[Richard Ruquist]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 11 Nov 2014, at 13:13, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> That seems contrary to EPR experiments where the split happens faster than
> the speed of light.
>
>
> There is no split. Only local differentiation of the first person
> experience. Keep in mind that the singlet state I0>I0> - I1>II1> is the
> same physical state as  I0'>I0'> - I1'>II1'> with Ix'> = Ix> rotated with
> any angle.
>

No split. That seems contrary to MWI.

>
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 3:27 AM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> If David Deutsch is correct, splitting is slower than or at lightspeed,
>> and doesn't cause whole universes to diverge (he also says universes are
>> only approximations anyway, iirc). In his view there are "bubbles" which
>> have split, embedded in larger regions which haven't (at least for a given
>> source of decoherence). Presumably these bubbles can intersect, and the
>> metaphor breaks down...
>>
>> The process is irreversible in most cases and for all practical purposes,
>> although a qc would be an example of splitting a region of the multiverse
>> temporarily, then bringing the "parallel" regions back together again.
>> Presumably there is some reversal at the microscopic level, since the
>> underlying physics is (I assume) time-symmetric.
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[Richard Ruquist]

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 11 Nov 2014, at 08:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
>  meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/10/2014 10:35 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>>
>>>> meekerdb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/10/2014 8:41 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bruce,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I questioned Bruno's statement that MWI universe splitting proceeds
>>>>>>> at the speed of light on the basis of EPR experiments which seem to 
>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>> that the splitting proceeds faster than the speed of light. Could you
>>>>>>> comment on this? I was unable to understand Bruno's response.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I often find Bruno's responses opaque, to say the least. I didn't
>>>>>> really understand it either. But I think this might be a point of dispute
>>>>>> in MW circles. If you really do take the wave function to be the only
>>>>>> reality, then that is an intrinsically non-local object, so splitting is
>>>>>> instantaneous everywhere (local in configuration space!) The trouble with
>>>>>> splitting expanding at the speed of light seems to me that this makes it 
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> dynamical process, and there are no Schroedinger dynamics for this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Decoherence is a dynamic process and presumably spreads at SoL.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think it is quite that simple. Sure, decoherence is a physical
>>>> process that is no more than SoL. But enough of the environment is affected
>>>> within a few microseconds -- before light reaches the lab walls, for the
>>>> worlds to have split. The rest of the split is then instantaneous (think
>>>> about it)
>>>>
>>> You mean for enough of the environment to have interacted so that the
>>> process is effectively irreversible.  Yes, I think that's right.  Usually
>>> the lab walls and other stuff are only nano-seconds away.  But if a neutron
>>> out in space is going to beta decay it may be a while before significant
>>> environment is entangled due to the finite SoL.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, I don't know. The CMB is pretty universal, and that tends to interact
>> with things.
>>
>
> What do you mean by the CMB?
>

Cosmic Microwave Background

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

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

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[Richard Ruquist]

That seems contrary to EPR experiments where the split happens faster than
the speed of light.

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 3:27 AM, LizR  wrote:

> If David Deutsch is correct, splitting is slower than or at lightspeed,
> and doesn't cause whole universes to diverge (he also says universes are
> only approximations anyway, iirc). In his view there are "bubbles" which
> have split, embedded in larger regions which haven't (at least for a given
> source of decoherence). Presumably these bubbles can intersect, and the
> metaphor breaks down...
>
> The process is irreversible in most cases and for all practical purposes,
> although a qc would be an example of splitting a region of the multiverse
> temporarily, then bringing the "parallel" regions back together again.
> Presumably there is some reversal at the microscopic level, since the
> underlying physics is (I assume) time-symmetric.
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[Richard Ruquist]

Bruce,

I questioned Bruno's statement that MWI universe splitting proceeds at the
speed of light on the basis of EPR experiments which seem to suggest that
the splitting proceeds faster than the speed of light. Could you comment on
this? I was unable to understand Bruno's response.
Richard

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:01 PM, Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> On 08 Nov 2014, at 19:43, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>  On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote:
>>>
>>>   > MWI struggles to explain the violations of Bell's inequality.
>>>
>>>  The Many world's interpretation easily explains the violation of Bell's
>>> inequality;
>>>
>>
>> I think Bruce was saying that the MW struggles to explain the Bell's
>> inequality in a local way.
>>
>> I disagree with Bruce, in the sense that I take QM, that is the
>> verifiable interference of all terms of the waves, as a strng evidence that
>> what is real is the configuration space (at least in the first
>> approximations). Then the universal wave (meaning by this the wave
>> describing both the physicists and the particles observed) explains the
>> Bell's inequality verification in the (first person plural) diaries of the
>> persons involved in an Aspect-like experience on entangled qubit.
>>
>
> That reminds me of what Norm Levitt (sadly no longer with us) used to say.
> Brent will remember this. Norm was a great fan of Bohmian mechanics and he
> always said that people get all het up about non-locality -- het up over
> nothing, in his opinion. Everything is local in configuration space, so why
> the fuss?
>
> Bruce
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?

[Richard Ruquist]

Besides the quark-gluon plasma was a BEC

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> LizR wrote:
>
>> On 7 November 2014 22:30, Bruce Kellett > > wrote:
>>
>> No, my main problem with identifying the expansion of the universe
>> as the origin of the arrow of time is that the expansion of the
>> universe really has essential zero impact on the everyday physics of
>> our experience, but we see a consistent AoT associated with
>> increasing entropy in every phenomenon of our everyday experience.
>> Sure, what happened in the early universe has had lasting
>> consequences for our everyday life, but any connection with the
>> expansion is too remote to provide a plausible explanation of the
>> consistency of our experience of time. So the increase of entropy
>> itself -- whose universality is easily understood -- is itself the
>> origin of the AoT.
>>
>>
>> So you don't think that the creation of bound states in the BB fireball
>> is a significant contribution to the entropy gradient?
>>
>
> No, and I don't really understand what you are trying to get at with this.
> In the early stages of the Big Bang we had a period of nucleo-synthesis in
> which the temperature was high enough for protons to have enough energy to
> fuse together in collisions, so amounts of deuterium, helium and lithium
> were formed. The exact amounts of these is a significant test of the hot BB
> theory since we know enough about nuclear physics to understand these
> processes. Once the expansion cooled things further, nucleo-synthesis
> stopped and could only start again when collapsing dust created stars which
> could ignite nuclear reactions -- and ultimately lead to supernovae which
> cook higher elements.
>
> But all these as standard processes and proceed according to the second
> law of thermodynamics just as much as the laws of nuclear physics. I find
> it strange that you refer to this as 'creating negative entropy' or some
> such.
>
> The entropy gradient can only exist because at any point in time the
> actual entropy of matter and radiation is much less than its possible
> maximum. This is as true in the early stages of nucleo-synthesis in the BB
> as it is now. We can get on entropy gradient only if the initial entropy
> was very much lower than might have been expected for a generic universe.
>
> The entropy gradient between the sun and earth is important, and life of
> earth depends on the existence of a cold dark universe into which we can
> dump our waste heat.
>
>
>
>> I don't think you can cite the "remoteness of the Hubble flow" (as it
>> were) as a reason to discount expansion as a source of the AOT (I assume
>> you think that because bound systems are effectively separated out from
>> it?). All the matter around us was once in the big bang fireball, and if
>> that's where the conditions that created the entropy gradient originated
>> then we would expect there to be a connection, although it may not be an
>> immediately obvious one.
>>
>
> The entropy gradient certainly originated at the beginning because it was
> a low entropy state. It was not the low entropy was somehow created by
> processes at that time. If the hot BB was a quark plasma at more-or-less
> thermal equilibrium, that is a relatively high entropy state for that form
> of matter, but that does not excite all the available degrees of freedom.
> It is only the quarks that are in thermal equilibrium, they are not in
> equilibrium with the gravitational and other degres of freedom, so relative
> to the maximum possible, that plasma was a low entropy state.
>
> Bruce
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?

[Richard Ruquist]

The Big Bang fireball was a quark-gluon plasma which has been recreated in
several high energy colliders. That plasma is characterized as a BEC in
which all particles share the same wave function, so they say. I would
expect that a BEC is very low entropy. Is that true?

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 6:02 AM, LizR  wrote:

> On 7 November 2014 22:30, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
>> No, my main problem with identifying the expansion of the universe as the
>> origin of the arrow of time is that the expansion of the universe really
>> has essential zero impact on the everyday physics of our experience, but we
>> see a consistent AoT associated with increasing entropy in every phenomenon
>> of our everyday experience. Sure, what happened in the early universe has
>> had lasting consequences for our everyday life, but any connection with the
>> expansion is too remote to provide a plausible explanation of the
>> consistency of our experience of time. So the increase of entropy itself --
>> whose universality is easily understood -- is itself the origin of the AoT.
>>
>
> So you don't think that the creation of bound states in the BB fireball is
> a significant contribution to the entropy gradient?
>
> I don't think you can cite the "remoteness of the Hubble flow" (as it
> were) as a reason to discount expansion as a source of the AOT (I assume
> you think that because bound systems are effectively separated out from
> it?). All the matter around us was once in the big bang fireball, and if
> that's where the conditions that created the entropy gradient originated
> then we would expect there to be a connection, although it may not be an
> immediately obvious one.
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?

[Richard Ruquist]

Zibbsey, you write amazingly like Hibbsa.

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:04 PM,  wrote:

> At the moment goofy theories abound, typically that divide into infinity
> structures which derive according to whatever is needed for whatever is the
> centre piece theory to pass muster. Typically, screen out the infinity
> section and what's left just isn't becoming of someone given a desk and a
> job for life entrusted with our most precious incumbent knowledge. The
> custodians are they who must comprehend value that is there, and through
> that understand the properties and continuation, levels of applicability,
> the continuation of the necessary meat and potatoes of a scientific
> civilization. To compare, to measure, to design, to predict, to solve
> dynamical, material, fluidphysical stresses and limits, through structures
> and transports, scales...all the same but now better...some new dimension
> causing complexity collapses maybe, that new theory explains is because
> symmetrical equates to a region that is redundant at this scale, that
> wasn't at the scale above.
>
> You know, something a true scientific breakthrough theory would simply
> deliver. Something mind boggling before, like emergence, suddenly
> understood as something very simple and invariant that doesn't explain
> emergence or talk about levels or scales, because all of that is about to
> be
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 1:14:46 AM UTC+1, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>I re-read S. Mitra's paper
>> 
>> again and it made more sense than before if I assumed that the reversible
>> measurement idea is to be taken as a local reversal to the "direction of
>> entropy flow" in an area and not the entire universe.
>>The trouble is this notion of locality. Are there any favorite
>> definitions of "locality" out there? AFAIK, it does not have a fixed size
>> in space, but may have a fixed size in "space-time" as location information
>> expands at the speed of light if we ignore the effects of local structure
>> that would modulate decoherence. This "decoherence" thing, IMHO, needs to
>> be looked at carefully.
>>In deference to Bruno, I should ask a question relevant to the ongoing
>> discussions. Is a finite universe with locally reversible time consistent
>> as a 1p world?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Kindest Regards,
>>
>> Stephen Paul King
>>
>>
>>   --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Seeing without seeing...

[Richard Ruquist]

Bruno: The differentiation can't go faster than light

Richard: How is that consistent with the EPR experiments?

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 04 Nov 2014, at 22:47, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 11/4/2014 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>  On 02 Nov 2014, at 19:09, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 11/2/2014 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>  On 01 Nov 2014, at 23:52, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  Are you aware of the Paul-Pavicic "bomb" detector?
>
> http://cds.cern.ch/record/395858/files/9908023.pdf
>
>
>  I did not know this. Impressive.
>
>
>
> It is most easily thought of as non-local in time.
>
>
>  I will have to think about that. If you can elaborate. I think I intuit
> what you are saying, but well, I need to work more on this.
>
>
> Intuitively a photon is encouraged to enter the detector because it is in
> resonance with an earlier instance of itself that is already circulating in
> the detector.  The experiment has not actually been done; but I think it
> would not work if you determined the time of emission of the photon to a
> precision on the order of the circulation time in the detector.
>
>
>  Is this based on some (relativistic?)  account of the energy-time
> "uncertainty relation"?
>
>  I must confess I have some difficulty to grasp your explanation but that
> might be due to my incompetence.
>
>
> More likely a misfire of my intuition.  I base it on their analysis which
> just takes classical analysis of a continuous EM wave of a single frequency
> (they note that a CW laser can have a 300Km coherence length so this is a
> good approximation).  So the solution is an EM field which is constant in
> time, modulo the traveling phase.  Then they interpret this as a
> probability amplitude for a single photon.  This implicitly makes the
> probability amplitude for that single photon dependent on the wave that is
> assumed to be time invariant.  But then if you push the quantum viewpoint
> further, that classical wave is just a probability amplitude for photons
> that came earlier.
>
>
> OK.
>
>
>
> Of course like most quantum weirdness the weirdness comes from assigning
> an interpretation that explicitly splits the wave and particle pictures.
>
>
> Is that not exactly what does the Copenhague dualisme, or von Neumann
> projection? Hmmm ... ?
>
>
>
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4522.pdf
>
>
>
> No problem with that paper. As I am a bit skeptical about non-locality, I
> am, like the author, certainly annoyed by the language making people
> believing that there is some retro-causality involved in delayed choice
> experiment.
>
> Now I will try, perhaps with my students, to get some "clearer" many-world
> pictures of such non-locality in time.
> Note that the usual Bell type of spatial non-locality is a non-locality in
> time for any observer in motion with respect to Bob and Alice. In the
> relativist frame, non-locality is always space-time non-locality.
>
> I just saw that Weinberg (in his "lectures on QM") seems to believe that
> the MWI is automatically non-local, but I guess he points on the MW
> theories which assumes some instantaneous split of the entire universe.
> This of course makes no sense. The splitting, or differentiation, goes at
> the interaction speeds. Superposition are contagious, but not so much as
> becoming instantaneous. The differentiation can't go faster than light.
>
> I saw also that he attributes to Nicolas Gisin a theorem showing that if
> we make the SWE slightly non linear, we get the possibility of non local
> interaction between separated observers, that is, instantaneous action at
> distance. He does not refer to its own similar result. That Weinberg's book
> is very nice, if a bit short on Bell, QC and foundations, (but then it is
> nice it refers to that matter, don't avoid Everett, nor Bell, and there are
> other good books on that topics (like Hirvensalo, for mathematicians,
> perhaps, or the Gruska book, for Quantum Computation)).
>
> Bruno
>
>
> Brent
>
>
>  Are not the chlorophyl molecule doing something similar when exploiting
> quantum weirdness for optimizing the use of the photons? Can the plant
> "know" the precise time of the absorption of the photons and get at the
> same time a similar energy optimum?
>
>  Plant would manage the energy of the sun without seeing, and without
> saying, of course :)
>
>  I profit from not having read a paper on non-locality in time to
> speculate wildly, sorry 
> If you have a good link on this form of non locality...  (and if I can
> optimize the energy and time needed ...)
>
>  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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit htt

Fwd: Fw: the physics arXiv blog

[Richard Ruquist]

Random Image Experiment Reveals The Building Blocks of Human Imagination
<http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/arXivblog/~3/unyAKuGka7E/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email>
-- Forwarded message ------
From: richard ruquist 
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 10:32 AM
Subject: Fw: the physics arXiv blog
To: Mind Brain Mind Brain , Thoretical_physics
Yahoogroups , Physical Sciences <
physical_scien...@yahoogroups.com>, "achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com"
, Swines ,
Richard Ruquist 




   On Saturday, November 1, 2014 8:10 AM, Emerging Technology From the
arXiv - MIT Technology Review  wrote:


the physics arXiv blog
<http://www.technologyreview.com/stream/26986/?sort=recent>
--
  Random Image Experiment Reveals The Building Blocks of Human Imagination
<http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/arXivblog/~3/unyAKuGka7E/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email>
 Posted: 31 Oct 2014 09:34 AM PDT
Scientists have discovered how to extract the template images that the
human mind uses to recognise objects, such as balls, cars and people.

<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/arXivblog?a=unyAKuGka7E:UCCC_Pwn1QU:yIl2AUoC8zA>
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/arXivblog?a=unyAKuGka7E:UCCC_Pwn1QU:dnMXMwOfBR0>
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/arXivblog?a=unyAKuGka7E:UCCC_Pwn1QU:gIN9vFwOqvQ>
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/arXivblog?a=unyAKuGka7E:UCCC_Pwn1QU:7Q72WNTAKBA>
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/arXivblog?a=unyAKuGka7E:UCCC_Pwn1QU:V_sGLiPBpWU>
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/arXivblog?a=unyAKuGka7E:UCCC_Pwn1QU:l6gmwiTKsz0>
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/arXivblog?a=unyAKuGka7E:UCCC_Pwn1QU:qj6IDK7rITs>
   You are subscribed to email updates from Emerging Technology From the
arXiv - MIT Technology Review
<http://www.technologyreview.com/stream/26986/?sort=recent>
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now
<https://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailunsubscribe?k=e3tbo0xvx8J8FRNN-hWeF1p6ST4>
. Email delivery powered by Google  Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway,
Mountain View, CA 94043, United States

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

Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact

[Richard Ruquist]

I think that string theory explains the weirdness of quantum theory.

A basic feature of string theory is that a number of dimensions
curl up into ultra-fine particles of space called Calabi-Yau Manifolds CYMs.
Being an array rigid particles in space,
we hypothesize that they form a Bose-Einstein Condensate BEC.

Since astronomical observations of the structure constant alpha
indicates a slight variation of it across the universe,
we hypothesize that the landscape of 10^500 to 10^1000 CYM designs
allows for each CYM of 10^90/cc to be distinct throughout the universe
and therefore capable of computing the wave functions of quantum theory.

If so the wave functions themselves are likely to be BECs
that can be entangled when strings like electrons and photons interact.

All of the above explains how electrons and photons
can pass through a double-slit one at a time and be detected one at a time,
because if the wave functions are entangled BECs,
information is transmitted instantaneously between them.
Richard

On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Russell Standish 
wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 09:04:57PM +, 'Chris de Morsella' via
> Everything List wrote:
> > Sounds a lot like MWI, but asserts that the parallel universe's subtle
> interactions explain the weirdness of quantum mecahnics
> >
> >
> > Read more at:
> http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html#jCp
> >
> > Griffith University academics are challenging the foundations of quantum
> science with a radical new theory based on the existence of, and
> interactions between, parallel universes.
> >
> > In a paper published in the prestigious journal Physical Review X,
> > Professor Howard Wiseman and Dr Michael Hall from Griffith's Centre
> > for Quantum Dynamics, and Dr Dirk-Andre Deckert from the University of
> > California, take interacting parallel worlds out of the realm of
> > science fiction and into that of hard science.
>
>
> Michael was a fellow PhD student of me. He was two doors down during
> my PhD. In fact we shared the same supervisor at the time. I haven't
> seen him for about 10 years, at which time he was essentially supported by
> his wife to play around with fundamentals of QM. I didn't know he'd
> moved to Queensland (Griffith uni), as he was in Canberra then.
>
> Good to know he's still thinking about stuff. He had a very
> interesting take on the relationship between the Heisenberg
> uncertainty principle and the Cramer-Rao inequality.
>
> Cheers
>
> --
>
>
> 
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
>  Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
>  (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)
>
> 
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[Richard Ruquist]

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 2:37 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 10/31/2014 7:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> On 30 Oct 2014, at 19:52, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>>  I envision wave functions as empty shells that can be filled with energy.
>>>
>>
>> Why not particles?  But then you are heading toward Bohm-de Broglie type
>> of non local hidden variable, which seems to me adding more mystery than
>> solving one.
>>
>
I base my thinking on double-slit experiments where a single photon is
transmitted at any one time and the detectors are set to record photons
having the original energy/frequency. The experimental results indicate
that only one photon is detected per one incident photon. With enough
single-photon detections the interference pattern can be discerned at the
detector plane. Yet EM theory suggests that the photon energy is spread
across the entire interference pattern.

So never mind what might be happening in other worlds, what makes all of
the photon energy suddenly appear at just one detector.

I certainly reject the idea that human consciousness makes all waves
collapse into one. But I have a different idea that may or may not make
sense.

My conjecture is that the EM fields (or in general the wave functions in
any particle-particle interaction) are entangled as though they are BECs.
Experiments demonstrate that entangled BECs transmit information instantly
between isolated but entangled BECs. If so, even if the photon energy is
spread out across the entire pattern, the information of where the photon
energy should go is available to the entire EM field.

That does not allow you to predict where any particular photon detection
will occur. But the instantaneous transfer of information may allow for a
single photon detection for each transmitted photon. The alternative in
single-photon experiments would be no detections at all since the EM field
on any particular detector is insufficient to create a detection.

If anyone buys this, I can also speculate on how wave functions could be
BECs or act like them.
Richard




>
>>
>>
>>  Because of quantum theory the interaction energy
>>> may or may not exceed particle-creation level.
>>> If the creation level is exceeded by not very much
>>> all of the interaction energy must go intl one quantum state
>>> else no particle is created.
>>>
>>> For many published reasons the state probabilities for creation are the
>>> Born probabilities.
>>>
>>> Yet in any interaction if the particle-creation energy is exceeded,
>>> all of the energy that goes into creating the particle goes into one
>>> state.
>>> That must be quantum collapse logic QCL.
>>>
>>
>> I am not convinced, but don't mind to much. I think we have some
>> agreement on what we disagree on. Of course, in the computationalist
>> theory, strictly speaking this belongs to open problems. Just that Everett
>> gives the closest physics to the one we have to derive from
>> computationalism, if I am correct.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>
> I don't think Everett explicitly considered quantum field theory, but it's
> not conceptually different.  A particle can be created or not, it's a
> probabilistic event.  So in MWI there are worlds where the particle is
> created and worlds where it isn't.  There are no worlds where a
> half-particle is created.  This is just another example in which everything
> *nomologically* possible happens; which is not the same as everything
> imaginable (logically consistent) happens.  Quantum mechanics puts lots of
> constraints on what can happen.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[Richard Ruquist]

I envision wave functions as empty shells that can be filled with energy.
Because of quantum theory the interaction energy
may or may not exceed particle-creation level.
If the creation level is exceeded by not very much
all of the interaction energy must go intl one quantum state
else no particle is created.

For many published reasons the state probabilities for creation are the
Born probabilities.

Yet in any interaction if the particle-creation energy is exceeded,
all of the energy that goes into creating the particle goes into one state.
That must be quantum collapse logic QCL.
Richard

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 30 Oct 2014, at 13:08, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> What- a delayed post eraser suggesting self-interference is extant(;<)
>
>
>
> Glad you see the problem. I knew I couldn't be the only one :)
>
> Well, if QM is really 100% correct, we can't delete anything anyway. We
> can just hide things for some period, but that asks for relative works and
> energy.
>
> In math forgetting is abstraction.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:12 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> you can delete your posts (I think?)
>>
>> On 30 October 2014 12:07,  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 11:03:01 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 6:17:12 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 28 Oct 2014, at 22:48, LizR wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well that WAS the point of my original post...
>>>>>
>>>>> : D
>>>>>
>>>>> On 29 October 2014 00:55, Peter Sas  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe 'spam of infinity' is a better term ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Spam of infinity', or 'Span of Infinities!' You remember surely, Liz,
>>>>> that Cantor proved (in some theory) that there are many infinities, even
>>>>> many sort of infinities. With the plural, span might make sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for quibbling on your infinite joke, but I just answered a post
>>>>> by John Clark, and it seems I need to quibble a little bit myself :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Bruce
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would say you're more a obfscator than a quibbler .
>>>>
>>>
>>>  sorry wasn't meant to send the post right then...the above comment
>>> actually represent what is usually the beginning of humour around these
>>> words. And I was actually going use that as a way to explain why you're not
>>> quibbling today.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Fwd: Neural Turing Machine

[Richard Ruquist]

-- Forwarded message --
From: richard ruquist 
Date: Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:32 AM
Subject: Neural Turing Machine
To: Swines , "
achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com" <
achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com>, Thoretical_physics Yahoogroups <
theoretical_phys...@yahoogroups.com>, Mind Brain Mind Brain <
mindbr...@yahoogroups.com>, Physical Sciences <
physical_scien...@yahoogroups.com>, Richard Ruquist 


"mimics the short-term memory of the human brain"


   On Thursday, October 30, 2014 8:12 AM, Emerging Technology From the
arXiv - MIT Technology Review  wrote:


the physics arXiv blog
<http://www.technologyreview.com/stream/26986/?sort=recent>
--
  Google's Secretive DeepMind Start-up Unveils A "Neural Turing Machine"
<http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/arXivblog/~3/dr1HzaZSk8M/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email>
 Posted: 29 Oct 2014 07:41 AM PDT
DeepMind has built a neural network that can access an external memory like
a conventional Turing machine. The result is a computer that mimics the
short-term memory of the human brain.

One of the great challenges of neuroscience is to understand the short-term
working memory in the human brain. At the same time, computer scientists
would dearly love to reproduce the same kind of memory *in silico*.

<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/arXivblog?a=dr1HzaZSk8M:gaHqO_rH4c0:yIl2AUoC8zA>
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/arXivblog?a=dr1HzaZSk8M:gaHqO_rH4c0:dnMXMwOfBR0>
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/arXivblog?a=dr1HzaZSk8M:gaHqO_rH4c0:gIN9vFwOqvQ>
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/arXivblog?a=dr1HzaZSk8M:gaHqO_rH4c0:7Q72WNTAKBA>
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/arXivblog?a=dr1HzaZSk8M:gaHqO_rH4c0:V_sGLiPBpWU>
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/arXivblog?a=dr1HzaZSk8M:gaHqO_rH4c0:l6gmwiTKsz0>
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/arXivblog?a=dr1HzaZSk8M:gaHqO_rH4c0:qj6IDK7rITs>
   You are subscribed to email updates from Emerging Technology From the
arXiv - MIT Technology Review
<http://www.technologyreview.com/stream/26986/?sort=recent>
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now
<https://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailunsubscribe?k=e3tbo0xvx8J8FRNN-hWeF1p6ST4>
. Email delivery powered by Google  Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway,
Mountain View, CA 94043, United States

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

everything-list@googlegroups.com

[Richard Ruquist]

Magnetic forces are neither attractive nor repulsive.

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Peter Sas  wrote:

> Photons are bosons, mediator particles The bosons mediate the forces
> between the fermions, the building pieces of matter... I guess what I wanna
> know is this: can all the foces mediated by the bosons be described as
> attractions or repulsions between the fermions? Or is that way too
> simplistic?
>
> Op donderdag 30 oktober 2014 11:10:59 UTC+1 schreef Liz R:
>>
>> I thought the electromagnetic force was mediated by the exchange of
>> photons (or virtual photons). Does that involve any forces that aren't
>> attractive/repusive at the point of interaction (i.e. where said photons
>> are emitted or absorbed) ?
>>
>>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[Richard Ruquist]

What- a delayed post eraser suggesting self-interference is extant(;<)

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:12 PM, LizR  wrote:

> you can delete your posts (I think?)
>
> On 30 October 2014 12:07,  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 11:03:01 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 6:17:12 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 28 Oct 2014, at 22:48, LizR wrote:

 Well that WAS the point of my original post...

 : D

 On 29 October 2014 00:55, Peter Sas  wrote:

> Maybe 'spam of infinity' is a better term ;)
>


 'Spam of infinity', or 'Span of Infinities!' You remember surely, Liz,
 that Cantor proved (in some theory) that there are many infinities, even
 many sort of infinities. With the plural, span might make sense.

 Sorry for quibbling on your infinite joke, but I just answered a post
 by John Clark, and it seems I need to quibble a little bit myself :)

 Bruce

>>>
>>>
>>> I would say you're more a obfscator than a quibbler .
>>>
>>
>>  sorry wasn't meant to send the post right then...the above comment
>> actually represent what is usually the beginning of humour around these
>> words. And I was actually going use that as a way to explain why you're not
>> quibbling today.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

everything-list@googlegroups.com

[Richard Ruquist]

Peter Sas needs an education in physics.
He came to the right place.

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:10 AM, LizR  wrote:

> I thought the electromagnetic force was mediated by the exchange of
> photons (or virtual photons). Does that involve any forces that aren't
> attractive/repusive at the point of interaction (i.e. where said photons
> are emitted or absorbed) ?
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[Richard Ruquist]

Been there. Done that. Dementia comes from sleep deprivation due to ... too
many details.

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 4:53 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 30 October 2014 09:14, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>> Yes to both questions. String theory treats spacetime as a continuum and
>> the loop quantum gravity LQG theories in which spacetime is granular
>> predict that photons at differing frequencies propagate at differing
>> velocities, which has apparently been falsified by Fermi Telescope data
>> that indicates that gamma rays about an order of magnitude of differing
>> frequency or energy arrive at the telescope at the same time within
>> measurement accuracy. I can get the reference for you if interested. Thanks
>> for thinking of me.
>> In my career I have encountered many researchers who seem to remember
>> everything of importance. Not me and that has really been a handicap. Now
>> at 77 even my short-term memory is failing me. I seem to be heading for
>> dementia but a quick trip to the afterlife would be preferable.
>>
>> Apparently eating lots of chocolate can help stave off dementia and even
> "senior moments". That and a bottle of red wine a day.
>
> (And hell, even if they can't)
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[Richard Ruquist]

Yes to both questions. String theory treats spacetime as a continuum and
the loop quantum gravity LQG theories in which spacetime is granular
predict that photons at differing frequencies propagate at differing
velocities, which has apparently been falsified by Fermi Telescope data
that indicates that gamma rays about an order of magnitude of differing
frequency or energy arrive at the telescope at the same time within
measurement accuracy. I can get the reference for you if interested. Thanks
for thinking of me.
In my career I have encountered many researchers who seem to remember
everything of importance. Not me and that has really been a handicap. Now
at 77 even my short-term memory is failing me. I seem to be heading for
dementia but a quick trip to the afterlife would be preferable.
Richard

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 27 Oct 2014, at 23:18, LizR wrote:
>
> On 28 October 2014 10:56, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>> But the span of infinity is outside spacetime.
>>
> I would say it's an abstract property of certain mathematical systems (or
> something similar). If GR is right and spacetime is a continuum, then it
> will contain infinities even in a finite region, which would mean that it's
> a mathematical abstraction that happens to be realised in the physical
> universe. But I don't think anyone knows if that is true at present, and I
> believe most theories of quantum gravity attempt to make spacetime into
> something other than a continuum.
>
>
> It looks like the natural idea. To quantize gravitation, we need to
> quantize space-time. But is not string theory still using the continuum in
> the background? Richard? Does not some experiment refute some granularity
> prediction of the loop-theory (which tries to make space time a non
> continuum)?
>
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

[Richard Ruquist]

Liz,

I define consciousness as my ability to make choices.
But my simple-minded view of MWI is that whatever choice I make in this
world
the opposite will be made by the splitting of me in another world'
and perhaps every possibility in between.
So in the 3p view, all choices balance out.

Bruno responds with the Gaussian  (somewhat like measure theory)
which suggests that some worlds are less important than this one.
(Peter wrote that in his blog) and which seems inconsistent with
duplication.
Richard


On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:01 AM, LizR  wrote:

> On 28 October 2014 17:14, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>> My simple-minded view of MWI is that it is deterministic and if it is
>> true then my consciousness is an illusion, period
>>
>
> Not necessarily your consciousness, you can be aware of things in a
> deterministic universe surely? But probably your free will, yes.
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

[Richard Ruquist]

My simple-minded view of MWI is that it is deterministic and if it is true
then my consciousness is an illusion, period

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:10 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 6:38 AM, LizR  wrote:
>
> >  So far the only real (non-sarcastic, non-insult-based) objection I've
>> heard comes down to a semantic quibble to do with redefining our concept of
>> an individual person.
>
>
> The entire point of Bruno's "proof" and all of his bizarre thought
> experiments is to examine and get rid of that "semantic quibble", and yet
> from page 1 Bruno acts as if the concept of personal identity was already
> crystal clear even though in his thought experiments such things were
> stretched about as far as they could go. In such circumstances using person
> pronouns with abandon as Bruno does without giving them a second thought is
> just ridiculous.
>
>   >This is exactly the same redefinition that was brought up by Everett in
>> 1957.
>
>
> No it is not for 3 reasons:
>
> 1) Everett was trying to explain the strange observations of the Quantum
> world in a logically cohesive way and to show why Quantum Mechanics was
> able to make good prediction about future physical events. Everett said
> nothing about personal identity or consciousness because he didn't need to,
> and that is the HUGE advantage Many Worlds has over other Quantum
> interpretations and is the only reason I'm a fan of the MWI. In the other
> Quantum Interpretations consciousness soon enters the picture, that would
> be OK if they could explain consciousness but they can't. Everett can't
> explain consciousness either but he doesn't need to because consciousness
> has nothing to do with his theory.
>
> 2) Like Everett Bruno is also interested in prediction but he seems to
> think that good predictions are the key to personal identity, and that's
> just nuts. The sense of self depends on the past not the future.
>
> 3) With Everett the meaning of the personal pronoun "he" is always
> obvious, it is the only person that we can observe using the laws of
> physics that fits the description of Bruno Marchal, but in a world with
> matter duplicating machines there are 2 (or more) people who fit that
> description, and so the word "he" conveys zero  information.
>
>  > a physicist who believes the MWI to be correct will come to the same
>> conclusions about indeterminacy that someone using Bruno's matter
>> transmitter would
>
>
> Obviously, but a person wouldn't need to believe in the MWI or even be a
> physicist to know that what is observed when a door is open a door is
> uncertain.
>
> > both comp and Everett allow for the possibility that from the third
>> person viewpoint the duplication could be observed
>
>
> If you say so, but I'm not a bit interested in "comp" and except for a few
> member of this list I don't think anybody on the planet is either.
>
> > And of course, making up silly versions of Bruno's acronyms
>
>
> I didn't make a single one up, they were what Wikipedia or Google though
> they most likely meant. For example, Wikipedia lists  27 possible means of
> "comp" and not one of them has anything to do with intelligence or
> consciousness or personal identity, and only one had anything to do with
> computers, " a class of Usenet groups devoted to computers and related
> technology".
>
>  John K Clark
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: "The Span of Infinity"

[Richard Ruquist]

But the span of infinity is outside spacetime.

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 5:44 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 28 October 2014 10:18, spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
>>
>> That! My friend is an ex-parrot.  I didn't come here for an argument. Yes
>> you did!
>>
>>  This could go on forever.. maybe we've discovered "the span of
> infinity"
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

[Richard Ruquist]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 27 Oct 2014, at 13:05, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> I have not seen any discussion of what Bruno calls the Gaussian nature of
> comp or MWI with which he claims that his beliefs in this universe are not
> found in the negative in other universes of the multiverse.
>
>
> It is like the quantum "white rabbits", or the possible extravagant path
> of the electron, which have small amplitude of probability thanks to
> Feynman quantum phase randomization.
>
> The physical reality, with comp, becomes a sum on all fictions, that sum
> must be one, by construction/definition, or by the global FPI on the UD*.
> The gaussian is there if you agree with the P=1/2 in the self-duplication.
>
> What remains amazing is the negative amplitude of probability, but then
> that is what I show being still possible thanks to the presence of an
> arithmetical quantization in arithmetic, at the place we need the
> probabilities.
>
>
>
>
> I referred to this as the GWI of reality
>
>
> Gimini- Weber ?
>
>
Gaussian World Interpretation GWI of quantum mechanics

>
> and suggested that it might be consistent with Zurek's Quantum Darwinism
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.5082v1.pdf
>
>
> I will try to find the time to read that paper.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 5:57 AM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> On 25 October 2014 06:16, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And doesn't such a god exist necessarily in the UD?  And doesn't the
>>> egomanical, despotic god of Abraham also exist necessarily?  As well as all
>>> the gods of Olympus and the Norse gods and the Hindu gods...
>>>
>>> Is this true? And do these gods also exist in an Everett multiverse? (in
>> the same way that Harry Potter does)
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

[Richard Ruquist]

I have not seen any discussion of what Bruno calls the Gaussian nature of
comp or MWI with which he claims that his beliefs in this universe are not
found in the negative in other universes of the multiverse. I referred to
this as the GWI of reality and suggested that it might be consistent with
Zurek's Quantum Darwinism http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.5082v1.pdf

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 5:57 AM, LizR  wrote:

> On 25 October 2014 06:16, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>
>> And doesn't such a god exist necessarily in the UD?  And doesn't the
>> egomanical, despotic god of Abraham also exist necessarily?  As well as all
>> the gods of Olympus and the Norse gods and the Hindu gods...
>>
>> Is this true? And do these gods also exist in an Everett multiverse? (in
> the same way that Harry Potter does)
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

[Richard Ruquist]

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:50 AM, Peter Sas  wrote:

> Well, I'm not a physicists but a philosopher, so I cannot give a
> physicist's answer. My approach is to start with the most fundamental
> question (Why is there anything at all?) and then see how far we can get
> with pure logic alone. It is of course very, very tricky to try to derive
> fundamental laws of nature in this way. But I think that we can actually
> get quite far with such an a priori method. Now with respect to your
> question, I understand that dark energy is a basically repulsive force
> driving inflation. I don't want to say I can derive dark energy from a
> priori principles (that would be absurd). But I think I can derive a
> duality of attraction and repulsion in that way. The reasoning I emply,
> however, is very abstract, using ideas taken from philosophers like Hegel
> and Heidegger, although on the whole I feel more attracted to the
> rationality of Anglo-American philosophy (and science) than to postmodern
> philosophy (which I think is basically a fraud). Perhaps my reasoning is
> closest to German idealists like Hegel and Schelling who still feld they
> could derive the basic principles of natural science from philosophical
> principles. So here is how my argument goes in nuce, I hope you can make
> sense of it:
>
> First I argue that nothing is self-negating (for logical arguments see the
> blog piece). Simply put: nothing is nothing to such a degree that it isn't
> even itself! Thus, as nothing negates itself, it produces being, it becomes
> something. Now, since nothing is different from itself, being (as the
> negation of nothing) must be different from something else. This then is
> how I define being: as difference from something else. Now it is easy to
> see that this difference must take two forms. First, being is being because
> it differs from non-being or nothing (let's call this ontological
> difference, following Heidegger). Second, being must also be internally
> differentiated, that is to say: there must be multiple beings differing
> from each other (let's call this ontic difference). Then we can say: a
> being is what it is because of its ontic difference from other beings.
> (Ultimately, I think, this imlies that beings are mathematical, for lacking
> intrinsic qualities of their own, they canly be distinguished in
> quantitative ways, such that it is their position in a quantitative
> structure which determines what they are.) Now we can say: the source (or
> cause) of what beings are is (ontic) difference. This difference, then,
> must precede them, just as any origin must precede the originated (at least
> logically, if not temporally). But what is this difference that precedes
> the different beings? It's like a relation that generates its own relata.
> Thus we must postulate something like a pure difference or a pure
> negativity underlying the mutual non-identity of beings. But what is this
> pure negativity? It seems clear to me that we are now back with our
> starting point, the concept of nothing as differing from itself. And this
> is not surprising if the self-negating nothing generates all beings, for
> then it must also act as the pure negativity that differentiates beings.
> But now comes the rub: there is a contradiction between ontological and
> ontic difference. Recall: ontological difference requires that beings
> differ from nothing (i.e. pure negativity), whereas ontic difference
> requires that there is pure negativity between them. Hence: to have
> existence (i.e. ontological difference) beings must stand in a negative
> relation to the negativity between them, they must differ from their mutual
> difference. But to differ from their mutual difference, beings must become
> the same and loose their separate identities. Hence there is a
> contradiction between identity and existence, i.e. between the determinacy
> of beings (ontic difference) and their existence (ontological difference):
> in short, existence is unifying, determinacy is separating. Now given the
> fact that being must be logically consistent, we must interpret this
> contradiction not as logical but as an opposition of forces. Thus existence
> becomes a unifying force, determinacy (ontic difference) becomes a
> separating force. The separating force must manifest itself as repulsion,
> i.e. as resistance against unification. The unifying force must manifest
> itself as resistance against repulsion, i.e. as attraction. Hence repulsion
> and attraction are the basic forces that govern being.
>
> I spelled out this argument in more detail on another blog piece I wrote:
>
> So if you want more detail, please check this piece. I have to emphasize,
> however, that I am still working on these ideas and that I hope to publish
> a fuller account on my blog in the near future.
>   http://critique-of-pure
> 
> -interest.blogspot.nl/201

Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)

[Richard Ruquist]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 19 Oct 2014, at 21:14, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
>
> Very well, and now we go to the primal. I am presuming, but who wrote the
> programs for computationalism,
>
>
> I guess you mean "who wrote the programs for the computations"
> (Computationalism is just a religious belief, or a philosophical axiom).
>
> If you are ready to accept that 2+2 = 4 independently of us (the living
> being), then we don't need to write the programs of the computations, or
> the program of the UD (which generates and executes all computations),
> because their existence is of the same type as the truth of 2+2=4. That is,
> elementary arithmetic implements all computations already.
>
>
>
>
> who thought the great thought, who made Plato's ideals?
>
>
>
> It is part of elementary arithmetic. You need only to believe in the
> axioms of arithmetic, like:
>

Bruno,
You seem to be basing Platonia on human belief, which I admit is consistent
with First Person Indeterminacy.
But I prefer your prior comment that elementary arithmetic is independent
of us.
And I do not see how elementary arithmetic produces logic.
Sorry to keep asking the same old questions.
You need not answer.
Richard



>
> 0 ≠ s(x)
> s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
> x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
> x+0 = x
> x+s(y) = s(x+y)
> x*0=0
> x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
>
>
> We see cause and effect in nature on our planet.
>
>
> Platonist don't believe that what they see is necessarily real. If it is
> persistent enough, they will take that as an evidence that there is
> something real, but not that what they see is the real thing.
>
>
> What causes lightning and thunder, or droughts, or earthquakes, and so
> forth, however, these are local events, or  apparently local, in the sense
> of this region of the universe. But laws, or programs are more subtle. Yet
> more profound. We have no indication, as of today, that life is prevalent
> in the universe.
>
>
> It is not well know, but there are strong evidences that life is prevalent
> in arithmetic. In fact, it is provable once you accept computationalism.
>
>
>
> Not many scientists see panspermia as the dominating force, and what is
> life but a chain of programs governing chemical action?
>
>
> That is how we see them, but life is in the immaterial relations leading
> to the experiences.
>
>
>
> If a law or program is said to emerge, then what from, Planck Cells?
>
>
> Just from elementary arithmetic, as you have learned in high school. There
> is no other assumption beside computationalism.
>
>
>
> How do planck cells produce programs. Is there a look up table, or akashic
> database to be read? How did this relational database evolve?
>
>
>
> "evolves" is how it seems to us, but time, space, energy comes from the
> First Person Indeterminacy on all computations seen from the first person
> points of view (if computationalism is correct). That is computable, so it
> makes computationalism a testable hypothesis.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Sun, Oct 19, 2014 12:19 pm
> Subject: Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)
>
>
>  On 18 Oct 2014, at 17:00, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
>
> Moreover, can consciousness be copied? Can we be duplicated mentally and
> how well can we. If, consciousness is a substance, as Tegmark asserts, then
> the pattern can be copied, right?
>
>
>
>  If consciousness is a quantum substance, integrally, then it cannot be
> cloned.
>
>  But then also, computationalism is false. Computationalism is that
> consciousness can be duplicated in the 3-1 view, like in the WM-duplication
> experiment. Consciousness cannot be duplicated in the 1-view, though, that
> is why there is a first person indeterminacy to begin with. But it is only
> relative (like in QM, actually).
>
>  But then, assuming comp, we have also that the physical substance, the
> apparent primitive matter cannot be cloned, as it is a sum of infinities.
> This must be weakened by the renormalization needed to hunt the white
> rabbit away, and which is already consistent with the observable-logic
> extracted from classical comp (comp + Theaetetus).
>
>  Keep in mind that once we assume computationalism, we cannot refer to
> the current physics in the argument, for logical reason. that elimiantes
> consciousness with or without saying. With computationalism, it is also
> equivalent with using God in a scientific explanation in theology. We can't
> do that, independently of the existence of god or not, or here of the
> physical universe or not.
>
>  Bruno
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Stathis Papaioannou 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Sat, Oct 18, 2014 9:23 am
> Subject: Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)
>
>  On 17 October 2014 09:40, David Nyman  wrote:
> > On 16 October 2014 19:54, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:
> >
> >> A necessary side-effect roughly equates to the idea of weak emerge

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

[Richard Ruquist]

Peter,

Could you elaborate on how Dark Energy fits into your thesis?
Richard

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Peter Sas  wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> Here is a blog piece I wrote about nothing as the ultimate source of being:
>
>
> http://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.nl/2014/09/why-is-there-something-rather-than.html
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

[Richard Ruquist]

Brent,

That is certainly true for Schrodinger's equations,
but is it also true for matrix theory?
Re: real and complex numbers.
Richard

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:30 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 10/21/2014 8:05 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 22 October 2014 08:40, Russell Standish  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:14:14AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Bruno Marchal 
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> So you don't assume the real numbers exist?
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Indeed.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Interesting.
>> >
>>
>> In Bruno's TOE, real numbers don't exist in the same way as integers,
>> much in the spirit of Kronecker's famous quote:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Kronecker
>>
>
>  Quantum theory would appear to support Kronecker.
>
>
> Quantum mechanics assumes real and complex numbers.
>
> Brent
>
>   Relativity is more concerned with real numbers, not to mention continua
> - but I have a feeling that most physicists would bet on QM as being closer
> to reality than GR, if pushed.
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

[Richard Ruquist]

Liz,

I am not sure that you can call the underpinning  physical. But you
certainly have a good point.

According to one string theory, what seems to exist before the creation of
the universe are dimensions and flux, and symmetries and quantum theory. At
the big-bang some of the dimensions inflate as double that number
compactify or curl up. What makes the dimensions compactify is the flux
that winds thru about 500 holes in each resulting compact particle. That
flux is related to the EM waves (or light) that exist after inflation ends
and the gluon-quark plasma dissipates.

The string landscape, the 10^500 possible unique compactifications, is
based on the flux windings thru the 500 topological holes, each winding
having 10 possible quantum states. If there were 100 quantum states, the
landscape would be 100^500 or 10^1000 unique compact particles. BTW all the
above is a standard 10 dimensional supersymmetric string theory

So what exists in this string theory before the big bang, I must admit,
sounds rather physical. But I prefer to reserve the word physical for the
part of nature that we can observe. For example we can observe the
quark-gluon plasma at several high energy colliders and it turns out to be
a superfluid like a BEC. But observational evidence for inflation is
suspicious because of dust.
But we cannot observe the compact particles or for that matter even
consciousness. So it is not certain that either exists even though we all
experience something we call consciousness.

All my hypotheses start from that basis. In a series of 3 papers, I first
assumed that 26 dimensions exist and used the two-time physics developed by
I. Barrs to derive what a possible Metaverse or Megaverse (used to be
called the multiverse before the MWI people co-opted that word) could look
like. Then I learned that astronomical observations indicated that the
structure constant varied across the universe, from which I hypothesized
that each compact particle in our universe was unique, so that they formed
a set of natural numbers and computation, which became my second paper and
which took me to this forum. You are reading the 3rd paper where I try to
put it all together.

I am a physicist, not a mathematician. I believe in symmetries and
conservation laws. So something from nothing makes no sense to me. That's
why I like black hole creation of baby universes. I even suggest that the
Metaverse came from a 26 dimensional black hole resulting in a 4
dimensional spacetime and compact particles capable of consistent and
effectively complete mathematics (because it is so huge and energetic) that
is capable of computing matter (according to CUH). But since writing that
last paper a few years ago, I have come to see that its full of loose ends-
something you have picked up on- I am impressed.
Rich










On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 7:20 PM, LizR  wrote:

> Hi Richard
>
> I'm only on page 2 of your paper, but already confused. You appear to be
> positing that a mathematical universe might have a physical underpinning.
> If so, this rather defangs the MUH, which obtains its importance from being
> logically prior to (the appearance of) a material universe. Without that
> assumption there seems no point in the MUH, since one is back needing to
> explain "something from nothing" to obtain the underlying physical
> universe. (Similarly with the CUH and Comp, of course.)
>
> Or have I misunderstood?
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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