Russell, do you believe that Schrödinger's cat is in a superposition of
dead and alive before we open the box?
On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 3:26:49 PM UTC+10, Bruce wrote:
>
> On 29/05/2017 2:52 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
> > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:26:18AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >> Th
On 29/05/2017 2:52 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:26:18AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
There is another question as to whether we are in a superposition,
of say red and green T.Rexes, but that they are in separate
decohered worlds and the overlap function is zero FAPP, as
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:26:18AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> There is another question as to whether we are in a superposition,
> of say red and green T.Rexes, but that they are in separate
> decohered worlds and the overlap function is zero FAPP, as Russell
> says. I don't think such a ques
On 29/05/2017 9:45 am, Pierz wrote:
WRT to this whole multi-coloured T-Rex business, there is a simpler
point to be made. My original argument was in favour of MWI. Now
whether, in MWI, macroscopic histories can merge is surely an
interesting puzzle. But /without /MWI, there cannot be any ambig
WRT to this whole multi-coloured T-Rex business, there is a simpler point
to be made. My original argument was in favour of MWI. Now whether, in MWI,
macroscopic histories can merge is surely an interesting puzzle. But *without
*MWI, there cannot be any ambiguity about the colour of T-Rexes. In
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 03:54:03PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> That is a personal question of taste. Why to try to unify GR and QM?
> If they works well in their domain, we could just keep both. But
There are physical domains where both theories are required. For
example the nature of the eve
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 06:37:09PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 28 May 2017, at 14:23, Pierz wrote:
>
>
>
> >We are merely ignorant of its state. I would argue the same
> >applies to the colour of T. Rex. The past is not in a
> >superposition of possible values, but we are ignorant of tho
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 1:40 PM, David Nyman wrote:
>> >
>> And I've been questioning, this is the fourth time, which word or words
>> don't you understand.
>>
>
> It is tedious to ask you again to reconsider your use of words about
> whose application we clearly disagree rather fundament
On 28-05-2017 04:24, Jason Resch wrote:
On Saturday, May 27, 2017, Russell Standish
wrote:
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:30:07PM -0700, Pierz wrote:
Recently I've been studying a lot of history, and I've often
thought about
how, according to special relativity, you can translate time into
spa
I recently posted a comment in reply to Russell on the topic of
supervenience, but it may have got lost in the recent posting confusion.
Anyway, I append it again below, slightly amended for comprehension in
isolation. The comments bear on physical supervenience and on whether
consciousness could b
On 28 May 2017 at 18:10, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:51 AM, David Nyman
> wrote:
>
> >>
>> I ask again, which word didn't you understand?
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> I've been questioning the implicit commitments that your wording
>> conceals.
>>
>
> And I've been questioning, th
On 28 May 2017 at 18:02, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 28 May 2017, at 16:53, David Nyman wrote:
>
>
> On 28 May 2017 at 14:38, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> On 26 May 2017, at 21:51, David Nyman wrote:
>>
>> On 26 May 2017 at 18:32, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 26 May 2017, at 14:04, David
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> you introduce an ambiguity by eliminating the "1p" precision. [...] You
> eliminate the FPI by eliminating the subject.
But you've completely forgotten IHA.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:51 AM, David Nyman wrote:
>>
> I ask again, which word didn't you understand?
>
>
>
> >
> I've been questioning the implicit commitments that your wording conceals.
>
And I've been questioning, this is the fourth time, which word or words
don't you understand.
On 28 May 2017, at 16:53, David Nyman wrote:
On 28 May 2017 at 14:38, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 May 2017, at 21:51, David Nyman wrote:
On 26 May 2017 at 18:32, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 May 2017, at 14:04, David Nyman wrote:
where that elusive internal space (which we seek in vain
On 28 May 2017, at 14:23, Pierz wrote:
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 10:28:52 AM UTC+10, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:30:07PM -0700, Pierz wrote:
> Recently I've been studying a lot of history, and I've often
thought about
> how, according to special relativity, you can t
On 28 May 2017, at 05:46, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 09:24:31PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
Regarding special relatively and collapse, I think the point is
that two
observers in different reference frames can have different
presents. Two
humans walking past each other
On 27 May 2017, at 17:02, John Clark wrote:
Due to the impenetrable tangle of quotes of quotes of quotes of
quotes of quotes that is epidemic on this list there is
no way to tell who but somebody wrote:
"The point is to recognise that at a certain stage it is no
longer scientific
On 28 May 2017, at 00:28, David Nyman wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: David Nyman
Date: 27 May 2017 at 22:43
Subject: Re: Answers to David 4
To: meekerdb
On 27 May 2017 9:19 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote:
On 5/27/2017 5:36 AM, David Nyman wrote:
It might. But ISTM tha
On 28 May 2017 at 14:38, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 26 May 2017, at 21:51, David Nyman wrote:
>
> On 26 May 2017 at 18:32, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> On 26 May 2017, at 14:04, David Nyman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> where that elusive internal space (which we seek in vain in
>>> extrinsicall
On 27 May 2017, at 04:30, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 27/05/2017 11:46 am, David Nyman wrote:
On 27 May 2017 at 01:44, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
I think it is the interpretation of the data that is theory-
dependent.
Not at all. Data don't just sit there staring you in the face.
What is data
On 27 May 2017, at 02:07, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 26/05/2017 6:53 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 May 2017, at 03:26, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 26/05/2017 9:11 am, David Nyman wrote:
On 25 May 2017 23:18, "Brent Meeker" wrote:
I have told you my theory of virtuous circular explanations.
"I
On 26 May 2017, at 21:51, David Nyman wrote:
On 26 May 2017 at 18:32, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 May 2017, at 14:04, David Nyman wrote:
where that elusive internal space (which we seek in vain in
extrinsically-completed models such as physics tout court)
Here we might differ, and you
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 12:24:32 PM UTC+10, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, May 27, 2017, Russell Standish > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:30:07PM -0700, Pierz wrote:
>> > Recently I've been studying a lot of history, and I've often thought
>> about
>> > how, according to special
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 10:28:52 AM UTC+10, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:30:07PM -0700, Pierz wrote:
> > Recently I've been studying a lot of history, and I've often thought
> about
> > how, according to special relativity, you can translate time into space
> and
On 28 May 2017 4:46 a.m., "Russell Standish" wrote:
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 09:24:31PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> Regarding special relatively and collapse, I think the point is that two
> observers in different reference frames can have different presents. Two
> humans walking past each other
On 28 May 2017 2:09 a.m., "John Clark" wrote:
On Sat, May 27, 2017 David Nyman wrote:
>
>> >
>>
>> Data feels something?
>>
>
>
> >
> Yes.
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>>
>> Data feels something in a way?
>>
>
>
> >
> Yes.
>
>
> Ah, now I see what you mean. Proof by repetitive
On 28 May 2017 5:52 a.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote:
On 5/27/2017 3:20 PM, David Nyman wrote:
I think what is meant by the reversal is clear enough. The forward
> hypothesis, mechanism, is that the realization of some information
> processing in the brain, or other physical system, instantiates
> c
28 matches
Mail list logo
