Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 2:21 PM smitra wrote: > On 02-07-2021 03:50, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 4:02 AM smitra wrote: > > > > >> > >> This definition only works when you replace the real physical world > >> by an approximation obtained by taking an appropriate infinite

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 02-07-2021 03:50, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 4:02 AM smitra wrote: On 01-07-2021 02:04, Bruce Kellett wrote: Worlds have to be carefully defined. According to decoherence theory (which is also a consequence of the linearity of the Schrodinger equation), decohered

Different Physical Laws in Each Universe

فَقَضَاهُنَّ سَبْعَ سَمَاوَاتٍ فِي يَوْمَيْنِ وَأَوْحَىٰ فِي كُلِّ سَمَاءٍ أَمْرَهَا ۚ وَزَيَّنَّا السَّمَاءَ الدُّنْيَا بِمَصَابِيحَ وَحِفْظًا ۚ ذَ‌ٰلِكَ تَقْدِيرُ الْعَزِيزِ الْعَلِيمِ [Al-Qur’an Chapter 41:12, Translator: Sahih International] And He completed them as seven heavens within two

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 4:02 AM smitra wrote: > On 01-07-2021 02:04, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > Worlds have to be carefully defined. According to decoherence theory > > (which is also a consequence of the linearity of the Schrodinger > > equation), decohered worlds are truly separate and do not

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

Think of a piece of music. There is a sequence of notes that occur in time and we perceive different sets of frequencies in time. Yet we are trained to think according to the Fourier logic that there is a time domain, where we hear no tones of different pitch, or there is the frequency domain

Re: ALCOR in the New York Times

On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 12:09:39AM +0200, Tomasz Rola wrote: > On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 11:43:30AM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > 4) It doesn't work very well, but your brain can be installed in a > > robot to handle packages at the Amazon warehouse. >

Re: ALCOR in the New York Times

On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 11:43:30AM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: > > > On 7/1/2021 8:19 AM, John Clark wrote: > >Actually scientific andtechnological considerations are only > >number 4 on my list of reasons why I think cryonics might not > >work, my first three reasons are:

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 7/1/2021 12:22 PM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 2:18 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: /> The math says the wave function travels thru both slots. / But when a single electron hits a photographic plate it doesn't

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 7/1/2021 12:34 PM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 2:03 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: />>> It's more that a particle or a system of particles exist in a single physical state, which is represented

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 2:03 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: *>>> It's more that a particle or a system of particles exist in a single >>> physical state, which is represented by different components in our basis >>> for the Hilbert space. * >> >> >

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 2:18 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: * > The math says the wave function travels thru both slots. * > But when a single electron hits a photographic plate it doesn't produce a vague smudge that a wave would, it produces a

Re: ALCOR in the New York Times

On 7/1/2021 8:19 AM, John Clark wrote: Actually scientific andtechnological considerations are only number 4 on my list of reasons why I think cryonics might not work, my first three reasons are: 1) I might not get frozen quickly after I am declared legally dead. 2) I might not be retained

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 7/1/2021 6:47 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 8:19 AM Bruce Kellett > wrote: /> In the two slit experiment the two paths are different./ Yes, and that's why there are two universes, thereis a difference between them. As Sesame Street says,

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

To split the worlds the difference must be that the state vector projects onto two (or more) orthogonal subspaces which correspond to the different possible values of the measurement. Brent On 7/1/2021 4:55 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 7:38 AM Bruce Kellett

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 7/1/2021 4:20 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 5:55 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: >> "superposition" is just a word that means a collection of particles that exist in very different physical states at

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 01-07-2021 02:04, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 2:29 AM smitra wrote: On 29-06-2021 01:46, Bruce Kellett wrote: I think John's trouble here is that he still adheres to David Deutsch's concept of worlds. Deutch talks as though every component of a superposition is a

Re: ALCOR in the New York Times

On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 9:13 AM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > *> I think this is a modern version of entombment with ideas of > resurrection. We might think of it as similar to what the Egyptians > thought.* In a way yes, but the Egyptian's relied on magic for the

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 8:19 AM Bruce Kellett wrote: *> In the two slit experiment the two paths are different.* > Yes, and that's why there are two universes, there is a difference between them. As Sesame Street says, one of these things is not like the other. * > How, then, are they the same

Re: ALCOR in the New York Times

I think this is a modern version of entombment with ideas of resurrection. We might think of it as similar to what the Egyptians thought. The preservation of bodies as mummies meant they could reassume life at a later time and join the pantheon of gods. In this case it is a far more complete

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 6:24:32 PM UTC-5 Bruce wrote: > On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 7:13 AM Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > >> On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 5:24:06 PM UTC-5 Bruce wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 4:50 AM Lawrence Crowell < >>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> The

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 9:56 PM John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 7:38 AM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > "superposition" is just a word that means a collection of particles > that exist in very different physical states at exactly the same time, in > other words it's a word

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 7:38 AM Bruce Kellett wrote: "superposition" is just a word that means a collection of particles that exist in very different physical states at exactly the same time, in other words it's a word that people like to use when they just don't want to say

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 9:04 PM John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 7:48 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > >> "superposition" is just a word that means a collection of particles >>> that exist in very different physical states at exactly the same time, in >>> other words it's a word that

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 5:55 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> "superposition" is just a word that means a collection of particles >> that exist in very different physical states at exactly the same time, > > > * > It's more that a particle or a

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 7:48 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: >> "superposition" is just a word that means a collection of particles >> that exist in very different physical states at exactly the same time, in >> other words it's a word that people like to use when they just don't want >> to say that