Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:59 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> Except for its simplicity the most important advantage of many worlds is >> that it doesn't have to explain what "measured" means, or what a "observer" >> means, or what a "choice" mean

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 12:59:02 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote: > > > On 1/20/2021 3:58 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 12:01 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > >> No, there are *NOT* exactly 10 winners! There are an astronomical >>> number to an astronomical power number horses tha

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 6:59 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 1/20/2021 3:58 AM, John Clark wrote: > > > Except for its simplicity the most important advantage of many worlds is > that it doesn't have to explain what "measured" means, or what a

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On 1/20/2021 3:58 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 12:01 AM Alan Grayson > wrote: >> No, there are *NOT*exactly 10 winners! There are an astronomical number to an astronomical power number horses that won that race with only a

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On 1/20/2021 12:34 AM, Pierz Newton-John wrote: On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 6:29 pm, Alan Grayson > wrote: On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 10:08:21 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 4:01 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: On Tuesd

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 5:03:15 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 10:23 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > >> >> >> On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 1:34:29 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 6:29 pm, Alan Grayson >>> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, January

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 10:23 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 1:34:29 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 6:29 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 10:08:21 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: >>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 4:01 pm,

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 12:01 AM Alan Grayson wrote: >> No, there are *NOT* exactly 10 winners! There are an astronomical number >> to an astronomical power number horses that won that race with only a >> submicroscopic difference between them, and there are also an astronomical >> number to an a

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 1:34:29 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > > > On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 6:29 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > >> On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 10:08:21 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 4:01 pm, Alan Grayson >>> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 6:29 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 10:08:21 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > >> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 4:01 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 11:46:35 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com >>> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 12

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

If the world *split* (or differentiate) it is self obvious, that before the split/differntiation, it's the same world. So if you start at moment t1 with one "world" A... at t2, you have two "worlds" A1 and A2 *each* having A as common past "world" Le mer. 20 janv. 2021 à 08:29, Alan Grayson a éc

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 10:08:21 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 4:01 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > >> On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 11:46:35 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 12:54 PM Alan Grayson >>> wrote: >>> >>> *> So contrary to som

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 4:01 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 11:46:35 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 12:54 PM Alan Grayson >> wrote: >> >> *> So contrary to some who think I know zilch about the MWI, I DO know >>> what world I am in ! I

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 11:46:35 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 12:54 PM Alan Grayson wrote: > > *> So contrary to some who think I know zilch about the MWI, I DO know >> what world I am in ! It's the world in which I made my bet, and won or >> lost.* >> >

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 12:54 PM Alan Grayson wrote: *> So contrary to some who think I know zilch about the MWI, I DO know what > world I am in ! It's the world in which I made my bet, and won or lost.* > Assuming 30 seconds elapsed between the time you made your bet and the time you won or los

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 6:04:34 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 4:48 PM Alan Grayson wrote: > > And if Many Worlds is correct then there is an Alan Grayson for > every horse in that race, and there is an Alan Grayson who saw every > one of t

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

What if we include information processing (e.g., information gathering, decision-making, communication, noise) into the equation? We all are kind of split in terms of information. (considering to research quantum decision-making, so please let me know if it’s a bad idea) Ally > On 19 Jan 202

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 4:48 PM Alan Grayson wrote: And if Many Worlds is correct then there is an Alan Grayson for every horse in that race, and there is an Alan Grayson who saw every one of those horses win. And if Many Worlds is not correct then something even stranger mus

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 8:25 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Sunday, January 17, 2021 at 11:00:46 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > >> One needs to mention Frauchiger and Renner’s result here, which makes >> rigorous the intuitive “Wigner’s friend” type argument and shows that a >> single-world QM is incon

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Sunday, January 17, 2021 at 11:00:46 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > One needs to mention Frauchiger and Renner’s result here, which makes > rigorous the intuitive “Wigner’s friend” type argument and shows that a > single-world QM is inconsistent, given some very broad and > sensible-sounding para

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 5:36 pm, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > On 1/17/2021 10:00 PM, Pierz Newton-John wrote: > > One needs to mention Frauchiger and Renner’s result here, which makes > rigorous the intuitive “Wigner’s friend” type argument and

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On 1/17/2021 10:00 PM, Pierz Newton-John wrote: One needs to mention Frauchiger and Renner’s result here, which makes rigorous the intuitive “Wigner’s friend” type argument and shows that a single-world QM is inconsistent, Does it?  Seems to me F&R's experiment doesn't realize Wigner's frien

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

I forgot to add the link. I’m sure it’s been shared here before and probably dissected to death: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05739-8 On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 5:00 pm, Pierz Newton-John wrote: > One needs to mention Frauchiger and Renner’s result here, which makes > rigorous the intu

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

One needs to mention Frauchiger and Renner’s result here, which makes rigorous the intuitive “Wigner’s friend” type argument and shows that a single-world QM is inconsistent, given some very broad and sensible-sounding parameters, like “quantum mechanics describes reality at all scales” and “no sup

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Sunday, January 17, 2021 at 11:04:26 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 9:41 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > *> One of the postulates of the MWI is that anything that CAN happen, MUST >> happen.* > > > Yes. > > * > Are you denying that postulate?* > > > No > > * > I am

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

You're welcome. AG On Sunday, January 17, 2021 at 6:48:29 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote: > Thanks. > > > On 1/16/2021 11:20 PM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: > > That's behind a paywall. Can you post a copy? > Brent > > I hope it works > > http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~jabarret/bio/publications/ToBeAW

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

Thanks. On 1/16/2021 11:20 PM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: That's behind a paywall.  Can you post a copy? Brent I hope it works http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~jabarret/bio/publications/ToBeAWorld.pdf -- You rec

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Sunday, January 17, 2021 at 2:48:34 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > On Sunday, January 17, 2021 at 11:04:26 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 9:41 AM Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> *> One of the postulates of the MWI is that anything that CAN happen, >>> MUST happen.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Sunday, January 17, 2021 at 11:04:26 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 9:41 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > *> One of the postulates of the MWI is that anything that CAN happen, MUST >> happen.* > > > Yes. > > * > Are you denying that postulate?* > > > No > > * > I am

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 9:41 AM Alan Grayson wrote: *> One of the postulates of the MWI is that anything that CAN happen, MUST > happen.* Yes. * > Are you denying that postulate?* No * > I am just applying it to a horse race. * > And if Many Worlds is correct then there is an Alan Grayson

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

You're an intellectual coward. Obviously, a horse race isn't a quantum process, but the example is pregnant with meaning. AG On Sunday, January 17, 2021 at 5:17:58 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > Le dim. 17 janv. 2021 à 12:53, Pierz Newton-John a > écrit : > >> >> >> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

One of the postulates of the MWI is that anything that CAN happen, MUST happen. Are you denying that postulate? I am just applying it to a horse race. AG On Sunday, January 17, 2021 at 4:53:50 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 10:15 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > >> >> >> On Saturday,

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

One of the postulates of the MWI is that everything that can happen, must happen. I just applied it to a horse race. Are you denying that? AG On Sunday, January 17, 2021 at 4:53:50 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 10:15 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > >> >> >> On Saturday, January 16, 2

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

Le dim. 17 janv. 2021 à 12:53, Pierz Newton-John a écrit : > > > On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 10:15 pm, Alan Grayson > wrote: > >> >> >> On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 9:55:50 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 3:10 pm, Alan Grayson >>> wrote: >>> On Saturday, Januar

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 10:15 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 9:55:50 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > >> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 3:10 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 7:28:14 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: >>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 3:49 am

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 9:55:50 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 3:10 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > >> >> >> On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 7:28:14 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 3:49 am, Alan Grayson >>> wrote: >>> *What would be the mechanism o

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

That's behind a paywall. Can you post a copy? Brent I hope it works http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~jabarret/bio/publications/ToBeAWorld.pdf -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 3:10 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 7:28:14 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > >> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 3:49 am, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >>> *What would be the mechanism or process for other worlds to interact >>> with each other, that is to interfere

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 7:28:14 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 3:49 am, Alan Grayson wrote: > >> *What would be the mechanism or process for other worlds to interact with >> each other, that is to interfere with each other? This is the gorilla in >> the room that many

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 12:47 am, 'scerir' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Imagine a spin-1/2 particle described by the *superposition* psi = > sqrt(1/2)[(s+)_z +(s-)_z] . > > If the x-component of spin is measured by passing the spin-1/2 particle > through a Stern-

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 3:49 am, Alan Grayson wrote: > *What would be the mechanism or process for other worlds to interact with > each other, that is to interfere with each other? This is the gorilla in > the room that many MWI enthusiasts ignore; awesome speculation with zero > grounding in empi

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

https://www.socsci.uci.edu/~jabarret/bio/publications/ToBeAWorld.pdf On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 3:13:01 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote: > > > On 1/16/2021 4:25 AM, Pierz Newton-John wrote: > > > > On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 8:16 pm, 'scerir' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >>

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On 1/16/2021 4:25 AM, Pierz Newton-John wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 8:16 pm, 'scerir' via Everything List > wrote: Pierz wrote: "If you want to argue against the internal logic of MWI, you have to start by accepting what it proposes then

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

*What would be the mechanism or process for other worlds to interact with each other, that is to interfere with each other? This is the gorilla in the room that many MWI enthusiasts ignore; awesome speculation with zero grounding in empirical evidence. Something definitely awry with this pov.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 1:23:52 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 2:18 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > >> >> >> On Friday, January 15, 2021 at 6:16:25 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 5:56 am, Alan Grayson >>> wrote: >>> On Thursday, January 1

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

Imagine a spin-1/2 particle described by the *superposition* psi = sqrt(1/2)[(s+)_z +(s-)_z] . If the x-component of spin is measured by passing the spin-1/2 particle through a Stern-Gerlach with its field oriented along the x-axis, the particle will *always* emerge 'up'. Why? It is a superposit

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 8:16 pm, 'scerir' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Pierz wrote: "If you want to argue against the internal logic of MWI, you > have to start by accepting what it proposes then proceeding to demonstrate > how that leads to internal inconsistenc

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

OK, but maybe the problem is in understanding? And asking questions. Like, I don't think we could use our phones today before actually trying to understand how to build them. And if we are dealing with quantum, I thought that must be illogical. On Sat, 16 Jan 2021, 09:37 'scerir' via Everything

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

"They show that MWI is inconsistent, in the Schroedinger picture. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00763476"; the paper (pdf) is here: http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~jabarret/bio/publications/ToBeAWorld.pdf -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

Pierz wrote: "If you want to argue against the internal logic of MWI, you have to start by accepting what it proposes then proceeding to demonstrate how that leads to internal inconsistency." They show that MWI is inconsistent, in the Schroedinger picture. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 2:18 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Friday, January 15, 2021 at 6:16:25 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > >> On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 5:56 am, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:36:39 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: >>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 4:01 pm,

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

No, I'm trying to understand. It's just too underwhelming, don't know what expeirment is needed to suggest otherwise. On Sat, 16 Jan 2021, 02:33 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List, < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > I don't think you're disagreeing with me. I'm saying you have only

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Friday, January 15, 2021 at 6:16:25 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 5:56 am, Alan Grayson wrote: > >> >> >> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:36:39 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 4:01 pm, Alan Grayson >>> wrote: >>> On Thursday, January

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

I don't think you're disagreeing with me.   I'm saying you have only measured something when it is entangled with you and with the environment.  The "friend", as I understand the experiment, is entangled with the system but not with the environment. Brent On 1/15/2021 5:00 PM, smitra wrote: D

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On 16-01-2021 02:00, smitra wrote: Decoherence should be irrelevant. Whether or not you (considered as some given physical system) have measured something, should not only depend on the entanglement between the measured system and those that belong to you. Correction: ...Should only depend on..

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 5:56 am, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:36:39 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > >> On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 4:01 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 3:15:47 PM UTC-7, Pierz wrote: On Thursday, Janua

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

Decoherence should be irrelevant. Whether or not you (considered as some given physical system) have measured something, should not only depend on the entanglement between the measured system and those that belong to you. Saibal On 16-01-2021 00:48, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

"Before an idea is told, it’s never been true ?”-kind of idea OR “levels ”-kind of idea? Or both ?

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

Why not assume the wf applies only before the measurement? Or why not withhold judgement on a phenomenon not yet understood? Instead you totally dismiss empirical evidence that no one ever observes a split. AG On Friday, January 15, 2021 at 1:18:53 PM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > On Fri, J

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 2:22 PM Alan Grayson wrote: > *> Why do you assume that the initial observer splits after initial trial > when it's not observed? AG * For heaven sake haven't you been listening?! Because that is the least bizarre interpretation anybody can think of to explain the utter

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

Why do you assume that the initial observer splits after initial trial when it's not observed? AG On Wednesday, January 6, 2021 at 5:28:51 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Here a schema: > [image: image.png] > > After 3 experiments, you have *8* worlds... each with the memory of the > initial

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:36:39 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 4:01 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > >> >> >> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 3:15:47 PM UTC-7, Pierz wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:07:59 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com >>> wrote: >>

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

No. You're not blocked. I'll try to look at it and give a response. AG On Friday, January 15, 2021 at 12:48:14 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Obviously I'm blocked by AG for whatever reason, because that's what I've > been telling him since and got no answer... I even bother to take the time

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

Obviously I'm blocked by AG for whatever reason, because that's what I've been telling him since and got no answer... I even bother to take the time to make a schematics (well a ugly one but still) :D Le ven. 15 janv. 2021 à 07:36, Pierz Newton-John a écrit : > > > On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 4:01 pm

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 4:01 pm, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 3:15:47 PM UTC-7, Pierz wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:07:59 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:26:42 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: >>> On

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 3:15:47 PM UTC-7, Pierz wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:07:59 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:26:42 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: >> >>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:42:43 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.c

FW: Born's rule from almost nothing

general_the...@googlegroups.com<mailto:general_the...@googlegroups.com> Subject: [Consciousness-Online] RE: Born's rule from almost nothing [Philip Benjamin] Be it Relativity Theory (actually Relationality) where Social Sciences ignore the speed of light in vacuo as a CONSTAN

RE: Born's rule from almost nothing

and tried for sedition…” ~~ From: everything-list@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 8:59 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Born's rule from almost nothing On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 11:15 AM Phil

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:07:59 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:26:42 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > >> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:42:43 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 8:29:16 PM UTC-7 Pierz

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 4:52:16 AM UTC-7 sce...@libero.it wrote: > IMO the main quantum postulate is the following. '*Real experiments have > results. Unperformed experiments have none*.' (But we can create > different postulates, and different theories. Only future experiments will

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:26:42 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:42:43 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 8:29:16 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: >> >>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 1:23:11 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com >>

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

IMO the main quantum postulate is the following. 'Real experiments have results. Unperformed experiments have none.' (But we can create different postulates, and different theories. Only future experiments will tell ...) > Il 14/01/2021 04:42 Alan Grayson ha scritto: > > > > > On We

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:42:43 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 8:29:16 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > >> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 1:23:11 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 4:33:20 PM UTC-7 Pierz

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

Le jeu. 14 janv. 2021 à 07:21, Quentin Anciaux a écrit : > > > Le jeu. 14 janv. 2021 à 04:42, Alan Grayson a > écrit : > >> >> >> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 8:29:16 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: >> >>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 1:23:11 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com >>> wrote: >>> On W

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

Le jeu. 14 janv. 2021 à 04:42, Alan Grayson a écrit : > > > On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 8:29:16 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > >> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 1:23:11 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 4:33:20 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: >>> On Wedn

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 8:29:16 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 1:23:11 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 4:33:20 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 5:50:29 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 1:23:11 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 4:33:20 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > >> On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 5:50:29 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 10:19:59 PM UTC-7 Pierz

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 4:33:20 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 5:50:29 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 10:19:59 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 12:09:06 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 5:50:29 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 10:19:59 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 12:09:06 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 3:56:51 PM UTC-7 johnk.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 10:19:59 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > > > On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 12:09:06 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 3:56:51 PM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 5:21 PM Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> *>

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 12:09:06 PM UTC+11 agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 3:56:51 PM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 5:21 PM Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> *> The MWI doesn't guarantee that these subsequent measurements, for >>> subseque

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 5:41:07 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 5:26:50 AM UTC-7 Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 3 Jan 2021, at 03:43, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, January 2, 2021 at 2:17:12 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> On

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 8 Jan 2021, at 15:59, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 11:15 AM Philip Benjamin > wrote: > > > The whole idea of multiverse is contrary to all laws of logic > > My hunch is that Many Worlds Is correct but I could be wrong, but right or > wrong

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 8 Jan 2021, at 15:18, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:32 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: > > > This is why you seem to "argue" like a Trumper (even though you're not). > > You asked me to define "THIS world" and I gave you a straight forward > > an

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 6 Jan 2021, at 14:50, Terren Suydam wrote: > > This is how I see it as well. All possible worlds already exist in a platonic > sense, and one's experience represents a single path traversed through the > infinite multitude of possibilities. This connects nicely to the universal > dovetai

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 6 Jan 2021, at 14:19, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > I think there is no split, but continuous differentiation. So there is always > an infinity of worlds. Or there is no world at all and only consciousness > differentiation. That’s better :) Yes, in the arithmetical reality (aka the standa

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 6 Jan 2021, at 14:17, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > There are no this world... Every world is a world with a past. To simplify we > will assume with start with one world at t, at t1, we have two worlds, at t2, > 4 and so on... Each of these worlds are direct continuation of the unique > wor

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 6 Jan 2021, at 14:17, scerir via Everything List > wrote: > > Worlds, worlds. What are these worlds? When a pig observes a Young > interferometer does this pig create worlds? Does this pig split worlds? Or > not, because there is not full consciousness? And in Alpha Centauri, where > t

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 5:26:50 AM UTC-7 Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 3 Jan 2021, at 03:43, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Saturday, January 2, 2021 at 2:17:12 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 5:35 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> everyth...@google

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 30 Dec 2020, at 23:48, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 29, 2020 at 9:51:24 AM UTC-6 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 28 Dec 2020, at 13:05, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote: >> >> On Sunday, December 27, 2020 at 7:14:09 PM UTC-6 Brent wrote: >> She implied that this proof was antit

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

> On 3 Jan 2021, at 03:43, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Saturday, January 2, 2021 at 2:17:12 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 5:35 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > > wrote: > > >> Assuming that Many Worlds is true and the multiverse is completely > >> de

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 8:04:39 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 8:33 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > > >> Yes, and if the Many Worlds Interpretation is correct then while Alan >>> Grayson is making those quantum spin measurements Alan Grayson is splitting >>> ma

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 8:33 AM Alan Grayson wrote: >> Yes, and if the Many Worlds Interpretation is correct then while Alan >> Grayson is making those quantum spin measurements Alan Grayson is splitting >> many trillions of times a second and has been doing so every second since >> Alan Grayson

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 4:52:39 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 12:25 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > *> Let's say AG goes into a lab and does repeated quantum spin >> measurements along some axis. THIS AG will have memories of ALL his >> observations* >> > > Ye

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 12:25 AM Alan Grayson wrote: *> Let's say AG goes into a lab and does repeated quantum spin measurements > along some axis. THIS AG will have memories of ALL his observations* > Yes, and if the Many Worlds Interpretation is correct then while Alan Grayson is making those q

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Friday, January 8, 2021 at 7:19:35 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:32 PM Alan Grayson wrote: > > *> This is why you seem to "argue" like a Trumper (even though you're >> not). You asked me to define "THIS world" and I gave you a straight forward >> answer, whi

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 11:15 AM Philip Benjamin wrote: > The whole idea of multiverse is contrary to all laws of logic My hunch is that Many Worlds Is correct but I could be wrong, but right or wrong it doesn't violate any law of logic, it's odd but not paradoxical and we already know from expe

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:32 PM Alan Grayson wrote: *> This is why you seem to "argue" like a Trumper (even though you're not). > You asked me to define "THIS world" and I gave you a straight forward > answer, which inexplicably you can't seem to understand.* > It's perfectly OK to use the word "

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

On Wednesday, January 6, 2021 at 6:39:11 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 7:55 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > >> Alan Grayson decides that tomorrow Alan Grayson will conduct an >>> experiment to determine if an electron goes left or right. If Many >>> Worlds is correct

RE: Born's rule from almost nothing

cs; Deluxe Edition, January 31, 2006 as quoted at https://intellectualcharity.org/2013/10/27/augustine-on-beauty/). Philip Benjamin From: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 3:13 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Born's rule fro

<    1   2   3   >