On Wednesday, December 23, 2020 at 1:45:06 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, December 20, 2020 at 6:36:53 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, December 20, 2020 at 12:52:26 AM UTC-7 Bruce wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 5:57 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>>>
On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 5:39 AM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
>
> You suspected right, I am asking a more basic question about self-sampling
> and the validity of probabilities when a version of the observer sees all
> possible outcomes.
>
There is a problem here -- or maybe it is just careless
The equation I derived is a geodesic deviation equation!
LC
On Wednesday, December 23, 2020 at 1:19:13 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 2:00 PM Lawrence Crowell
> wrote:
>
> > There is a correspondence between the geodesic deviation equation and
>> the
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 2:00 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is a correspondence between the geodesic deviation equation and the
> Schrodinger equation.
>
Wouldn't geodesic deviation be more relevant when dealing with gravity and
General Relativity than
On Wednesday, December 23, 2020 at 8:43:05 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 4:52 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> > *There are many 1p views*
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> > *and for each the probability of that particular observation is one*
>>
>
> Yes, AFTER Bruce Kellett has
On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 21:51, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 8:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 13:29, Bruce Kellett
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:45 PM Stathis Papaioannou
>>> wrote:
>>>
From what I understand of your
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 9:29 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
>* t**his is still inconsistent with the Schrodinger equation because* [blah
> blah]
The Schrodinger Equation is not holy writ, but the Born Rule is because it
has been shown over and over again to work. The Schrodinger Equation Is
useful
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 5:15 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
*> Think of it like this: take a randomly shuffled deck of cards and hand
> one card from the deck to each of 52 people. The probability that one of
> the people will get the 3-of-Spades is one. *
If Many Worlds is correct then the
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 4:52 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
> *There are many 1p views*
>
Yes.
> *and for each the probability of that particular observation is one*
>
Yes, AFTER Bruce Kellett has observed that the electron went left rather
than right then the probability the electron had gone left
> On 22 Dec 2020, at 05:03, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> wrote:
>
> Science doesn't deal in proofs, only in evidence. And the reality it deals
> with is that which can be tested...i.e. is not "underlying”.
I sort of agree. To believe in an underlying reality, or in a fundamental
> On 21 Dec 2020, at 17:25, Lawrence Crowell
> wrote:
>
> Bell's theorem and the Kochen-Specker theorem are indications of an
> irreducible randomness to measurement outcomes in QM.
That is clear for me when you assume one and only one physical universe, or one
measurement outcome.
It is
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 8:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 13:29, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:45 PM Stathis Papaioannou
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> From what I understand of your position, you would claim that the 1 in
>>> 10^100 copy will screw up
On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 13:29, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:45 PM Stathis Papaioannou
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 10:58, Bruce Kellett
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:45 AM Stathis Papaioannou
>>> wrote:
>>>
On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 09:15, Bruce
AG asked: does randomness imply no-FTL-signaling?
Let me ask: does determinism imply FTL-signaling?
A is one of the two wings of a Bell apparatus
i is the observable to be measured in A
x is the possible value of i
B is the other wing of a Bell apparatus
j is the observable to be measured in B
y
If micro reality is irreducibly random, why isn't it appropriate to refer
to it as the "underlying reality"? You seem to be splitting hairs to no
avail. AG
On Monday, December 21, 2020 at 9:27:20 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
> Bullshit; Counterexample; the derivation of the LT from the
On Sunday, December 20, 2020 at 6:36:53 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
> On Sunday, December 20, 2020 at 12:52:26 AM UTC-7 Bruce wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 5:57 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/19/2020 10:38 PM, Bruce Kellett
16 matches
Mail list logo
