Re: substitution level

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 , spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > c​ > onsciousness may be profitable field of learning, or it may stand still > forever, as is surmised. Of course doing experiments with living things, > including ourselves > ​ [...] > ​Not ​

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 6/06/2017 10:21 am, David Nyman wrote: On 6 June 2017 at 00:23, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 5/06/2017 8:42 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am not alone skeptical about inferring that the violation of the Bell

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 6 June 2017 at 00:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 5/06/2017 8:42 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 05 Jun 2017, at 05:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> On 5/06/2017 12:19 pm, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> On 4/06/2017 10:05 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 02 Jun

Re: substitution level

It's a waste of time because we know about as much as we are ever going to know a about that? Naw! There has to be computer oriented neurobiologists, and physicists who are willing to push the envelope a bit. Consciousness may be profitable field of learning, or it may stand still forever, as

“Could a Quantum Computer Have Subjective Experience?”

Here Scott Aaronson addresses the "pretty-hard problem of consciousness" http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1951 His idea of "participation in the Arrow of Time" is a narrower and more technical version of my idea that consciousness only exists in the context of an environment in which it

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 5 June 2017 at 17:38, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 05 Jun 2017, at 15:48, David Nyman wrote: > > On 5 June 2017 at 14:22, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 04 Jun 2017, at 14:48, David Nyman wrote: >> >> >> >> On 4 Jun 2017 1:05 p.m., "Bruno Marchal"

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 05 Jun 2017, at 15:48, David Nyman wrote: On 5 June 2017 at 14:22, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Jun 2017, at 14:48, David Nyman wrote: On 4 Jun 2017 1:05 p.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 02 Jun 2017, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 1/06/2017

Re: substitution level

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> ​>​ >> Besides that Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the play? > > ​> ​ > Why so nasty? ​It's been 152 years. Too soon?​ > ​> ​ > All I was saying is that quantum computers are not > ​ ​ > qualitatively

Re: substitution level

On 05 Jun 2017, at 16:07, Telmo Menezes wrote: I guess you mean that it does not violate Church thesis. Yes. Of course, it can "do" things impossible to do in real time, or without emulating the subject, that a classical computer cannot do. For example, it can generate a genuine random

Re: substitution level

On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 6:01 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Telmo Menezes > wrote: > >> > >> There is nothing that a quantum >> computer can do that a classical computer cannot do, > > > There are problems a > classical

Re: substitution level

> I guess you mean that it does not violate Church thesis. Yes. > Of course, it can > "do" things impossible to do in real time, or without emulating the subject, > that a classical computer cannot do. For example, it can generate a genuine > random bit. To do emulate this with a non-quantum

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 5 June 2017 at 14:22, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 04 Jun 2017, at 14:48, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 4 Jun 2017 1:05 p.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: > > > On 02 Jun 2017, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 1/06/2017 10:19 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 04 Jun 2017, at 14:48, David Nyman wrote: On 4 Jun 2017 1:05 p.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 02 Jun 2017, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 1/06/2017 10:19 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Jun 2017, at 02:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 1/06/2017 4:43 am, Bruno Marchal

Re: substitution level

On 05 Jun 2017, at 04:44, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 11:48:23AM -0400, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Russell Standish wrote: ​> ​ That is not the same thing. The largest prime number doesn't exist, so ​ ​ there's no

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 05 Jun 2017, at 05:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 5/06/2017 12:19 pm, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 4/06/2017 10:05 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Jun 2017, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: Your claim appears to be that Bell's theorem is not valid in MWI. Bell's theorem is valid. His inequality

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 05 Jun 2017, at 04:19, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 4/06/2017 10:05 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Jun 2017, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: In QM, with or without collapse, decoherence and the transition from the pure state to a mixture gives a definite measurement result. In particular

Re: Answers to David 4

On 04 Jun 2017, at 13:31, David Nyman wrote: On 4 June 2017 at 11:47, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Jun 2017, at 00:29, David Nyman wrote: On 1 June 2017 at 18:00, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Jun 2017, at 16:42, David Nyman wrote: On 1 Jun 2017