Re: Entanglement

On 4/25/2018 7:44 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 2:17:31 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 4/25/2018 6:39 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: *On its face it's absurd to think the SoL is invariant for all observers regardless of the relative motion of

Re: Entanglement

On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 2:17:31 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 4/25/2018 6:39 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > *On its face it's absurd to think the SoL is invariant for all observers > regardless of the relative motion of source and recipient, but it has > testable consequences.

Re: Entanglement

On 4/25/2018 6:39 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: *On its face it's absurd to think the SoL is invariant for all observers regardless of the relative motion of source and recipient, but it has testable consequences. The MWI has no testable consequences, so it makes no sense to omit this

Re: Entanglement

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 11:55:34 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 4:11:57 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 12:26 PM, wrote: >> >>> *> the MW advocates (Clark, Smitra, et al) who are comfortable

Re: Entanglement

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 4:11:57 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 12:26 PM, > wrote: > >> *> the MW advocates (Clark, Smitra, et al) who are comfortable ignoring >> the obvious absurdity of the need for creating multiple observers with >>

Re: Entanglement

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 9:48:44 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 4/25/2018 12:09 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > Did you not read Bruce's example of a entanglement which didn't imply > > non locality? It was classical elastic scattering where there was no > > uncertainty in

Re: Entanglement

On 4/25/2018 12:09 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: Did you not read Bruce's example of a entanglement which didn't imply non locality? It was classical elastic scattering where there was no uncertainty in momentum. How is this different from the singlet case with no uncertainty in

Re: Entanglement

On 4/25/2018 6:57 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 10:51:13 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal* On 22 Apr 2018, at 01:47, Bruce Kellett wrote: From: *smitra* On

Re: Entanglement

On 4/25/2018 4:09 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Deutsch tries to answer the case by showing that information transfer is everywhere local. That is fine, because that was never in dispute. He does not seem to realize that it is the non-separability of the wave-function, not information transfer,

Re: Mind Uploading

On 4/25/2018 3:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: G proves that (p <-> ~ []p) is equivalent with (p <-> <>t), or equivalently (p <-> ~[]f). So consistency (<>t) is a solution to the (logical) equation x <-> ~[]x. ?? What does this proof look like?  Why doesn't it prove f <->~[]f ? Brent -- You

Re: Entanglement

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 5:59:50 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 5:48:10 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 8:57:16 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at

Re: Mind Uploading

On 4/25/2018 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The answer is that if a belief comes from reason, it might still be false. The belief that fact is earth was due to reason based on local extrapolation. Reason build theories, but later, reason + new evidence can show old theories to be wrong. So,

Re: Mind Uploading

On 4/25/2018 2:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:29, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Science is never a question of agreement or disagreement, but of understanding or finding a mistake,

Re: Mind Uploading

On 4/25/2018 2:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:24, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But religion, when understood, make you love all humans and non humans. That's all the true Scotsman fallacy. Not at all. There is a

Re: Mind Uploading

On 4/25/2018 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:14, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The problem is that when people oppose science and religion, they tend to forget that “Primary matter” is also a “religion”, and

Re: Entanglement

On 4/25/2018 1:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: See my papers. We get a quantum logic for the observable. How do you define an observable such that everyone can agree on the observed value? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List"

Re: Entanglement

On 4/25/2018 1:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Obviates action at a distance, but not the quantum inseparability, which is simply linearity, which should be derived from Mechanism, and steps have been done in that direction, as physics must be given by self-reference statistics on

Re: Entanglement

On 4/25/2018 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Exactly like in arithmetic. But the interaction of Bob and Alice, does not make any worlds less probable, only some worlds get less accessible from where they have made the measurement. Cf RSSA … the probabilities are always relative. ?? How do

Re: Entanglement

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 5:48:10 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 8:57:16 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 10:51:13 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal >>> >>> On 22

Re: Entanglement

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 8:57:16 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 10:51:13 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: Bruno Marchal >> >> On 22 Apr 2018, at 01:47, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> From: smitra

Re: Entanglement

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 12:26 PM, wrote: > *> the MW advocates (Clark, Smitra, et al) who are comfortable ignoring > the obvious absurdity of the need for creating multiple observers with > identical memories,* Historically the argument from personal incredulity has

Mind Uploading

Bruno Marchal wrote: > >* The answer is that if a belief comes from reason, it might still be > false. The belief that fact is earth was due to reason based on local > extrapolation. Reason build theories, but later, reason + new evidence can > show old theories to be wrong.

Re: Entanglement

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 10:51:13 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > > On 22 Apr 2018, at 01:47, Bruce Kellett < > bhke...@optusnet.com.au > wrote: > > From: smitra > > > On 22-04-2018 00:18, Brent Meeker wrote: > >> On 4/21/2018 12:42

Re: Entanglement

From: *Bruno Marchal* > On 23 Apr 2018, at 13:10, Bruce Kellett > wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal* > On 23 Apr 2018, at 05:43, Brent Meeker

Re: Entanglement

From: *Bruno Marchal* > On 22 Apr 2018, at 06:39, Bruce Kellett > wrote: From: *smitra* > On 22-04-2018 04:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: From:

Re: Entanglement

From: *Bruno Marchal* > On 22 Apr 2018, at 01:47, Bruce Kellett > wrote: From: *smitra* > On 22-04-2018 00:18, Brent Meeker wrote: On

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 23 Apr 2018, at 12:58, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > [Sorry for the formatting. I don't know what to do, gmail is becoming > unusable] > > On 22 April 2018 at 15:55, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Hi Telmo, >> >> >> On 21 Apr 2018, at 10:59, Telmo

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 23 Apr 2018, at 00:39, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > >> “Faith is believing what you know ain't so.” > > > That is blind faith, which is the opposite of faith by

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:29, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Science is never a question of agreement or disagreement, but of >> understanding or finding a mistake, internal or external (vis-àb-vis facts). > > That's simplisitc.

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:24, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> But religion, when understood, make you love all humans and non humans. > > That's all the true Scotsman fallacy. Not at all. There is a reason why religion (well

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:23, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> That's confused. Values are not objective facts and nobody (including >>> militant atheists) thinks they are. Values, like loving your children, are >>> inherently

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:14, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> The problem is that when people oppose science and religion, they tend to >> forget that “Primary matter” is also a “religion”, and eventually they take >> a religion

Re: [SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] Mind Uploading

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 22:58, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/22/2018 6:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Which is the opposite of economy. And it destroys us. Th fault is neither in >> money, nor in democracies, and the only thing we need to do is to re-intsall >> the

Re: [SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] Mind Uploading

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 22:55, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/22/2018 6:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Mono-theism is monism: the idea that the reality is ONE, and thus points >> toward universality. It is a good thing as long as dogma are not imposed. > > monotheism n.

Re: Entanglement

> On 23 Apr 2018, at 13:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > >>> On 23 Apr 2018, at 05:43, Brent Meeker < >>> meeke...@verizon.net >>> > wrote: >>>

Re: Entanglement

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:41, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/22/2018 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> It follows from both QM and Comp. If Alice and Bob are space-separated, I >> cannot even makes sense of how you can measure correlations, given that once >> they are

Re: Entanglement

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 19:22, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 4:19:44 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 20 Apr 2018, at 03:18, Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >> >> From: Bruno Marchal On 18 Apr 2018, at 15:45,

Re: Entanglement

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 18:26, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 12:00:05 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 7:27:33 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote: > From: smitra < <>smi...@zonnet.nl <>> >> On 20-04-2018 04:54, Brent Meeker wrote:

Re: Entanglement

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 06:39, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: smitra < smi...@zonnet.nl > > >> >> On 22-04-2018 04:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> From: SMITRA > >> >> I think

Re: Entanglement

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 01:47, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: smitra < smi...@zonnet.nl > > >> >> On 22-04-2018 00:18, Brent Meeker wrote: >> On 4/21/2018 12:42 PM, smitra wrote: >> >> That's then an artifact of

Re: Entanglement

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 00:35, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 6:18:13 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: > > > On 4/21/2018 12:42 PM, smitra wrote: > > On 20-04-2018 04:54, Brent Meeker wrote: > >> On 4/19/2018 7:28 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > >> > >>> On

Re: Entanglement

> On 20 Apr 2018, at 20:31, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/20/2018 6:43 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com > wrote: >> No, what Bruno wrote was "a superposition of "Iup>IMinus> and (Minus>Iup>", >> which I took to mean an attempt to expand the