Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

Jason, given a cosmological context for your "stable" laws, Sabine Hossenfelder in this video seems to suggest that "laws" are only stable as long as the spatial false vacuum exists. That a true vacuum is a null state, which is stable but dormant, where energy is completely conserved. Perhaps wi

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 7/4/2021 7:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote: All QM interpretations are "many-component" theories. It's just that some posit that, at certain (often not well-defined) times, all but one of those many-components stop existing. So as to "Why keep those components?" I think it leads to a simpler theo

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 7/4/2021 6:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:50 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 7/4/2021 5:30 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 12:54:45 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: It's not that it's

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 04-07-2021 08:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 2:59 PM smitra wrote: On 02-07-2021 06:46, Bruce Kellett wrote: No, I am not tracing out anything. I am looking at whether an interference pattern is formed or not. I don't have to detect the IR photons in order for the inter

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 9:18 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > On 7/4/2021 6:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> On 7/4/2021 5:14 PM,

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 7/4/2021 6:33 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 2:50:48 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: On 7/4/2021 5:30 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: For example, A happens in 16 worlds and B in 9 worlds. Or in general, the proportion of worlds where A happens to worlds where B happens is

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 7/4/2021 5:54 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 12:57:03 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: So you are this single magic soul that selects one world of many to really be in? I don't select it; nature does. That seems contrary to the idea that your consciousness gets ent

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 7/4/2021 6:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 7/4/2021 5:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 6:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List mailto:everything

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 7/4/2021 3:13 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 4:57 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: >> An intelligent quantum computer is perfectly capable of creating a document specifying that at a certain time it had

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 2:58:33 AM UTC+2 Jason wrote: I find the differentiation of preexisting states a more palatable way to > think of splitting universes, which tends to raise questions that create > misunderstanding (like: where does the energy come from to make these other > worlds).

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 2:50:48 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > > On 7/4/2021 5:30 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: > > For example, A happens in 16 worlds and B in 9 worlds. Or in general, the > proportion of worlds where A happens to worlds where B happens is 16/9. > > But it's an additional axiom that this

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > On 7/4/2021 5:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 6:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> On 7/4/2021 5:17 AM, T

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:50 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > On 7/4/2021 5:30 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: > > > On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 12:54:45 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > >> It's not that it's necessarily 50/50; it's that there's no mechanism for >> it

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:39 PM Tomas Pales wrote: > > On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 1:28:34 AM UTC+2 Jason wrote: > >> >> Wei Dai, the founder of this list, proposed something quite similar, I >> think: >> >> http://www.weidai.com/qm-interpretation.txt >> > > Thanks. From the last two sentences it doe

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 12:57:03 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > So you are this single magic soul that selects one world of many to really > be in? > I don't select it; nature does. > That seems contrary to the idea that your consciousness gets entangled > with every different result and so is eq

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 7/4/2021 5:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 6:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 7/4/2021 5:17 AM, Tomas Pales wrote: On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 1:51:51 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: And in the two-outc

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 7/4/2021 5:30 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 12:54:45 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: It's not that it's necessarily 50/50; it's that there's no mechanism for it being the values in the Schroedinger equation. In one world A happens.  In the other world B happens.  How d

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 7/4/2021 5:05 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 3:36 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 7/4/2021 8:01 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 9:07 AM Lawrence Crowell mailto:goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 1:28:34 AM UTC+2 Jason wrote: > > Wei Dai, the founder of this list, proposed something quite similar, I > think: > > http://www.weidai.com/qm-interpretation.txt > Thanks. From the last two sentences it does seem that the parallel worlds don't arise by splitting at m

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 6:57 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > On 7/4/2021 4:30 AM, Tomas Pales wrote: > > > > On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 4:38:42 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > >> Advocates of MWI want to claim there are no projections (they aren't >> unita

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 12:54:45 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > It's not that it's necessarily 50/50; it's that there's no mechanism for > it being the values in the Schroedinger equation. In one world A happens. > In the other world B happens. How does, for example, a 16:9 ratio get > implement

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 6:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > On 7/4/2021 5:17 AM, Tomas Pales wrote: > > > On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 1:51:51 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: > >> >> And in the two-outcome experiment, how do you ever get a probability >> diff

Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not released on April 1st)

Oh, I don't know if Schrodinger would sic his cat on me, or Wigner would sic his friend on me for such insolence? It may even be worthy of being a prayer as it describes reality? As a physicist you should not be shocked (yes of course appalled) that the peasants of the fields find some of your w

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 7/4/2021 4:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:07 AM Tomas Pales > wrote: On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 12:48:06 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: But that works only if the copies are generated in the actual quantum coin tossing experiment

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 3:36 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > On 7/4/2021 8:01 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 9:07 AM Lawrence Crowell < > goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > *I can imagine this being worked without M

Re: The best video yet about January 6

Nada, Lawrence. There is a money line to be followed from the funders of the democratic party, to who gets elected prosecutors, who get to rule on whether arrests are valid, who get to decide on who stayed in jail at a time of plague, to who are the defense attorneys, all SPLC + now the New sovi

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:07 AM Tomas Pales wrote: > > On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 12:48:06 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: > >> But that works only if the copies are generated in the actual quantum >> coin tossing experiment -- they can't be pre-existing because then the idea >> doesn't work -- there is no ca

Re: The best video yet about January 6

You want us all to be nazis because you need us all to be nazis because you hate orange man. The dem voting base wants a dictatorship run by the boards of directors who run your woke corporations, who fund your democrats and and yeah, the reps too. My assertion is: We Agree On Nothing. has meani

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 8:57 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 7/4/2021 4:30 AM, Tomas Pales wrote: > > On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 4:38:42 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > >> Advocates of MWI want to claim there are no projections (they aren't >> unitary)

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 1:02 AM John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 9:07 AM Lawrence Crowell < > goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > *I can imagine this being worked without MWI. The nonlocality of the >> gravitation field and the locality of QFT means that with spacetime form

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 7/4/2021 4:30 AM, Tomas Pales wrote: On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 4:38:42 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: Advocates of MWI want to claim there are no projections (they aren't unitary) that instead the the world "splits" and each approximately diagonal value is realized in a subspace.  But

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 7/4/2021 5:17 AM, Tomas Pales wrote: On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 1:51:51 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: And in the two-outcome experiment, how do you ever get a probability different from 0.5 for each possible outcome? You would seem to be looking for a branch counting explanation of

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 4:57 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> An intelligent quantum computer is perfectly capable of creating a >> document specifying that at a certain time it had information in its memory >> banks that indicated which slot a pho

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 7/4/2021 1:29 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 3:36 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: >> I think I mentioned before that in David Deutsch's book "The Ghost In The Atom" he proposed an experimental test that wo

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 3:36 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> I think I mentioned before that in David Deutsch's book "The Ghost In >> The Atom" he proposed an experimental test that would be very difficult, >> but not impossible, to perform that c

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On 7/4/2021 8:01 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 9:07 AM Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > /I can imagine this being worked without MWI. The nonlocality of the gravitation field and the locality of QFT means that with spacetime formed

Re: Which philosopher or neuro/AI scientist has the best theory of consciousness?

On 7/4/2021 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Jun 2021, at 13:17, smitra wrote: Information is the key. Conscious agents are defined by precisely that information that specifies the content of their consciousness. This means that a conscious agent can never be precisely located in some p

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 12:09 PM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think GRW should be ruled out by Occam's razor, it requires extra >> terms be added to Schrodinger's equation which make it more difficult to >> solve and do not improve its ability to make predictions

Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not released on April 1st)

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 12:56:38 AM UTC-5 spudb...@aol.com wrote: > Our descendents will have to see how far they can push things, Bruno. That > is, if they can push things, and if we can as a species encourage the > machinery to benefit us? Machines could do this making enjoyable > discover

Re: The best video yet about January 6

The demonstrations last summer were not a Democratic party coordinated set of events. They rather spontaneously happened on their own. To the extent there was rioting, which was not nearly as extensive as you seem to think, it was minor stuff compared to a coordinated attempt to overthrow Congre

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 10:02:07 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 9:07 AM Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > >> > *I can imagine this being worked without MWI. The nonlocality of the >> gravitation field and the locality of QFT means that with spacetime formed >> by

Re: Which philosopher or neuro/AI scientist has the best theory of consciousness?

On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 8:46:39 PM UTC+2 Jason wrote: > In your opinion who has offered the best theory of consciousness to date, > or who do you agree with most? Would you say you agree with them > wholeheartedly or do you find points if disagreement? > > I am seeing several related though

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 9:07 AM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > > *I can imagine this being worked without MWI. The nonlocality of the > gravitation field and the locality of QFT means that with spacetime formed > by entanglements of quantum states or fields, that loc

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 5:30:08 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 11:26 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > *> Then do you suppose that the number of branches corresponds to the >> probability?* >> > > With a few caveats

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 1:51:51 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: > > And in the two-outcome experiment, how do you ever get a probability > different from 0.5 for each possible outcome? > > You would seem to be looking for a branch counting explanation of > probability (self-locating uncertainty). But

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 12:48:06 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: > But that works only if the copies are generated in the actual quantum coin > tossing experiment -- they can't be pre-existing because then the idea > doesn't work -- there is no causal connection between the experiments and > the copi

Re: Which philosopher or neuro/AI scientist has the best theory of consciousness?

> On 19 Jun 2021, at 16:02, John Clark wrote: > > Suppose there is an AI that behaves more intelligently than the most > intelligent human who ever lived, however when the machine is opened up to > see how this intelligence is actually achieved one consciousness theory > doesn't like what it

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 9:30 PM Tomas Pales wrote: > On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 4:38:42 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > >> Advocates of MWI want to claim there are no projections (they aren't >> unitary) that instead the the world "splits" and each approximately >> diagonal value is realized in a subspace

Re: Which philosopher or neuro/AI scientist has the best theory of consciousness?

> On 19 Jun 2021, at 13:17, smitra wrote: > > Information is the key. Conscious agents are defined by precisely that > information that specifies the content of their consciousness. This means > that a conscious agent can never be precisely located in some physical > object, because the inf

Re: Which philosopher or neuro/AI scientist has the best theory of consciousness?

> On 19 Jun 2021, at 02:18, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > I'm most with Dennett. I see consciousness as having several different > levels, which are also different levels of self-reference. Different modes, yes (“level” is already used to describe the Doctor(s coding des

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 4:38:42 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > Advocates of MWI want to claim there are no projections (they aren't > unitary) that instead the the world "splits" and each approximately > diagonal value is realized in a subspace. But then one needs to explain > what about those s

Re: Which philosopher or neuro/AI scientist has the best theory of consciousness?

> On 18 Jun 2021, at 20:46, Jason Resch wrote: > > In your opinion who has offered the best theory of consciousness to date, or > who do you agree with most? Would you say you agree with them wholeheartedly > or do you find points if disagreement? > > I am seeing several related thoughts comm

Re: The best video yet about January 6

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 12:00 AM wrote: *> Remember John, we have had months of democratic party rioting in > democratic party run cities all of 2020.* > Mr. Potato Head, did you actually look at this video? How Trump Supporters Took the U.S. Capitol

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 8:30 PM John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 11:26 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> *> Then do you suppose that the number of branches corresponds to the >> probability?* >> > > With a few caveats, which I spelled

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 11:26 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: *> Then do you suppose that the number of branches corresponds to the > probability?* > With a few caveats, which I spelled out previously, you already know I do. I said a few days ago: