On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 12:29 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
*> You formerly insisted that energy conservation would be manifest in MWI
> splitting due to measurements, because whatever unit of energy was used it
> would be rescaled with the probability and so the thinning out of energy by
>
You've obscured the point by writing four lines of well known physics
"explaining" each line I wrote.
You formerly insisted that energy conservation would be manifest in MWI
splitting due to measurements, because whatever unit of energy was used
it would be rescaled with the probability and
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 7:23 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
> *Supposedly energy is singled out as apportioned because it's nominally
> conserved.*
I suppose that's why some around here are making such a big deal about it.
> >* it's conserved because Hamiltonians are time-translation invariant. *
On 5/16/2022 4:06 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 6:31 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:
/>>> Energy is proportional to mass thru the speed of light. /
>> Yep, E= Mc^2. and the speed is measured in meters per second
and light moves at 299,792,458 metres per
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 6:31 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
* >>> Energy is proportional to mass thru the speed of light. *
>>>
>>
>> >> Yep, E= Mc^2. and the speed is measured in meters per second and
>> light moves at 299,792,458 metres per second. But a meter is defined as the
>> distance light
On 5/16/2022 12:56 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 1:54 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:
On 4/25/2022 9:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
>> It doesn't matter what you use, you're going to need an
energy calibration standard because there's just no way to
measure the
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 5:57 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 1:54 PM Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
> On 4/25/2022 9:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>
>
>
> >> It doesn't matter what you use, you're going to need an energy
>>> calibration standard because there's just no way to measure the
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 1:54 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
On 4/25/2022 9:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
>> It doesn't matter what you use, you're going to need an energy
>> calibration standard because there's just no way to measure the absolute
>> energy of anything, you can only measure the relative
On 4/25/2022 9:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
It doesn't matter what you use, you're going to need an energy
calibration standard because there's just no way to measure the
absolute energy of anything, you can only measure the relative energy.
Energy is proportional to mass thru the speed of
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:33 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>> But g does NOT drop by 50% and I never said it did, I said the
>> gravitational potential energy drops by 50%, and that will happen if the
>> mass/energy of a gravitationally bound system drops by 50% even if g
>> remains constant. If
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:07 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 6:42 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> *> Sure, a spring balance needs to be calibrated against some standard
>> mass. But we do not calibrate every day. Once the scale is set, we assume
>> that the spring constant or
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:33 AM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> If all mass were scaled down by the same factor the gravitational
> interactions, like orbits and pendulums, would seem unchanged.
>
You might want to rethink that! At the surface of the earth (radius r)
Newton's law of gravitation states
On 4/25/2022 6:06 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 6:42 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:
>> The only reason we think the gravitational constant does not
change is because when we measure the potential gravitational
energy in something today against a standard
: Mon, Apr 25, 2022 7:26 pm
Subject: Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule
On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:19:07 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:
Hmm. You AG obviously haven't seen the state of education today with its
corrosive, racial, and sexually preferenced faith
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 6:42 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> The only reason we think the gravitational constant does not change is
>> because when we measure the potential gravitational energy in something
>> today against a standard calibration energy we find that we get the same
>> number of
Vlad, if such is even conceivable?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Grayson
> To: Everything List
> Sent: Mon, Apr 25, 2022 7:26 pm
> Subject: Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:19:07 PM U
derivation of the Born Rule
On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:19:07 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:
Hmm. You AG obviously haven't seen the state of education today with its
corrosive, racial, and sexually preferenced faith movements? The mentioning of
the Missiles of October moment and predicting
isis I correctly predicted the outcome, but
> still got a "gentleman's" C in my course on International Relations. That's
> Cornell (at its worst). AG
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Grayson
> To: Everything List
> Sent: Mon, Apr 25, 2022 1
On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 4:09:23 AM UTC+3 Bruce wrote:
> Despite Carroll's protestations (and the similar protestations of others),
> energy cannot be conserved in the multiverse -- each split must duplicate
> the energy of the whole as many times as there are branches.
Thanks for the
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 2:02 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 8:08 AM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> * > That is true enough, but we do not always measure energy by comparison
>> with some reference energy. Sometimes we use other laws of physics. For
>> example, most of the energy in
al Message-
From: Alan Grayson
To: Everything List
Sent: Mon, Apr 25, 2022 1:20 pm
Subject: Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule
On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 10:55:56 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 12:46 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
>
to 42 5o
80 billion lightyear's away? Or, maybe not.
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Kellett
To: Everything List
Sent: Sun, Apr 24, 2022 9:09 pm
Subject: Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:28 AM John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Apr 24
On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 10:55:56 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 12:46 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> *> Any publications? Any degrees? You must have done SOMETHING! Time to
>> come clean. AG *
>>
>
> Nothing special. Unlike you I never cleaned to work at JPL
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 12:46 PM Alan Grayson
wrote:
*> Any publications? Any degrees? You must have done SOMETHING! Time to
> come clean. AG *
>
Nothing special. Unlike you I never cleaned to work at JPL and I was never
best friends with Carl Sagan, I'm just a humble electrical engineer and
On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 10:05:49 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:31 AM Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> *> "Alan Grayson" is my pseudo-name of choice,*
>
>
> *Sure it is. *
>
> *> and I could prove I was co-author on those papers, but* [...]
>
> *Sure you can. *
>
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:31 AM Alan Grayson wrote:
*> "Alan Grayson" is my pseudo-name of choice,*
*Sure it is. *
*> and I could prove I was co-author on those papers, but* [...]
*Sure you can. *
John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at Extropolis
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 8:08 AM Bruce Kellett wrote:
*> You appear to be assuming that one measures energy against some
> reference energy. So that if both your reference and the thing you are
> measuring change by the same factor, you do not see any difference.*
>
Yes, there must always be
On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:09:26 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 1:48 AM Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> *> While I was at JPL*[...]
>
>
> How odd, JPL is in the habit of hiring people who don't know what any
> bright 10 year old knows, that you need hypersonic
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 7:31 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 9:09 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> * > The trouble with Sean's glib response to the question is that in each
>> branch of the multiverse, we can measure the energy both before and after
>> the supposed split.*
>>
>
>
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 1:48 AM Alan Grayson wrote:
*> While I was at JPL*[...]
How odd, JPL is in the habit of hiring people who don't know what any
bright 10 year old knows, that you need hypersonic speeds to get into earth
orbit, and yet JPL still somehow managed to perform the intricate
On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 9:09 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
> This is what Sean Carroll actually says in his book "Something Deeply
> Hidden":
>
> "*Well", replied Alice. "Just think about ordinary textbook quantum
> mechanics. Given a quantum state, we can calculate the total energy it
> describes. As
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 11:32:31 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 6:28:02 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 7:12 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> > *Maybe because you're mentally retarded? You posted Sean's
>>> "explanation" for where
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 6:28:02 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 7:12 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> > *Maybe because you're mentally retarded? You posted Sean's
>> "explanation" for where the energy comes from to create the world's which
>> infatuate you! If a
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 6:28:02 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 7:12 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> > *Maybe because you're mentally retarded? You posted Sean's
>> "explanation" for where the energy comes from to create the world's which
>> infatuate you! If a
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:28 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 7:12 PM Alan Grayson
> wrote:
>
> > *Maybe because you're mentally retarded? You posted Sean's
>> "explanation" for where the energy comes from to create the world's which
>> infatuate you! If a world has 1%
On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 7:12 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
> *Maybe because you're mentally retarded? You posted Sean's "explanation"
> for where the energy comes from to create the world's which infatuate you!
> If a world has 1% probability of existing according to Born's rule, it has
> 1% of the
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:12 AM Alan Grayson wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:34:34 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 2:18 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> *I get it. No problem with those bridges. After all, Sean Carroll
>>> endorses it and he's on the facuty
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:34:34 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 2:18 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> *I get it. No problem with those bridges. After all, Sean Carroll endorses
>> it and he's on the facuty of Caltech! AG *
>
>
> Well I don't get it, I have no idea
On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 2:18 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
*I get it. No problem with those bridges. After all, Sean Carroll endorses
> it and he's on the facuty of Caltech! AG *
Well I don't get it, I have no idea what you're talking about.
John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at Extropolis
On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 4:09:34 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 3:56:47 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 5:48 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> *> Suppose I told you I am the obscure one, having faded from my previous
>>> glory of
On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 3:56:47 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 5:48 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> *> Suppose I told you I am the obscure one, having faded from my previous
>> glory of working the Great One, Carl Sagan? Would that help?*
>>
>
> It might, if
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 5:48 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
*> Suppose I told you I am the obscure one, having faded from my previous
> glory of working the Great One, Carl Sagan? Would that help?*
>
It might, if you didn't just tell me but gave me one shred of evidence to
indicate you actually are
On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 3:30:46 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 5:22 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> *> You seem obsessed with this issue. More important is the bridge issue
>> as it effects the MWI. AG*
>>
>
> Yeah, if I had been caught telling a whopper as
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 5:22 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
*> You seem obsessed with this issue. More important is the bridge issue
> as it effects the MWI. AG*
>
Yeah, if I had been caught telling a whopper as large as the one you told I
'd want to change the subject too.
r4x
John K ClarkSee
On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 3:04:08 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 4:17 PM Alan Grayson wrot
>
>
>
>> Those two papers were published around 54 years ago, so their references
>> aren't at my fingertips.
>>
>
> They haven't been at your fingertips for a
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 4:17 PM Alan Grayson wrot
> Those two papers were published around 54 years ago, so their references
> aren't at my fingertips.
>
They haven't been at your fingertips for a very long time, I first asked for
them about 10 years ago when you first made that claim..
The
On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 2:17:00 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 1:40:16 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 2:35 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> *> As for the Sagan issue, as I distinctly recall that I posted the
>>> citations to
On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 1:40:16 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 2:35 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> *> As for the Sagan issue, as I distinctly recall that I posted the
>> citations to those articles,*
>>
>
> I distinctly remember asking you over and over and
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 2:35 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
*> As for the Sagan issue, as I distinctly recall that I posted the
> citations to those articles,*
>
I distinctly remember asking you over and over and over for a link to the
journal articles (at least 2 you said) that you claim to have
On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 11:45:08 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 11:05 AM Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> Schrödinger's Equation is time independent,
>
*>>> Then why, for example, does the solution for a free particle
spread out as time
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 11:05 AM Alan Grayson
wrote:
Schrödinger's Equation is time independent,
>>>
>>> *>>> Then why, for example, does the solution for a free particle spread
>>> out as time progresses? AG *
>>>
>>
>> >> As time progresses things change, that is in fact what time
On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 2:43:47 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 3:01 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> >> Schrödinger's Equation is time independent,
>>>
>>
>> *> Then why, for example, does the solution for a free particle spread
>> out as time progresses? AG *
to that
situation and it also says there is no reason to favor one of those
outcomes over the other
* > my point was to prepare the reader for a version of the Born rule
> concerning large samples only, instead of single outcomes.*
>
Such a version would be less powerful and less usef
the square of the absolute value of a particle's wave-function,
> a.k.a. the Born rule.
>
Not only I do not argue with this, but I emphasise it: this is one of the
ways in which QM appears "workable". But my point was to prepare the reader
for a version of the Born rule concern
On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 1:33:46 AM UTC+3 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 4/21/2022 3:03 PM, George Kahrimanis wrote:
>
> [...] Strictly speaking, zero information implies "undefined probability",
> or "imprecise probability between 0 and 1". The reason it is commonly
> mistaken as 50-50 is
to
mention that *my argument for deriving the Born
Rule works with collapse, too* -- so it is an
alternative to Gleason's theorem.
Here I define colapse as an irreversible
process, violating unitarity of course, and I
ply to your message, I share your
>>>>> concern about decoherence but I see the glass as half-full; that is, with
>>>>> a
>>>>> little more subtlety I hope that the matter can be formulated in clear
>>>>> terms.
>>>>>
&g
erive probability from
> QM -- that would be a pointless discussion,
It would be pointless because we have known from experiment for nearly a
century that the best way to obtain probability from quantum mechanics is
to take the square of the absolute value of a particle's wave-function,
a.k.a. the
new dynamics). I forgot to mention that *my argument
for deriving the Born Rule works with collapse, too*
-- so it is an alternative to Gleason's theorem.
Here I define colapse as an irreversible process,
violating
t the end of my first reply to your message, I share your
>>>> concern about decoherence but I see the glass as half-full; that is, with
>>>> a
>>>> little more subtlety I hope that the matter can be formulated in clear
>>>> terms.
>>>>
&g
nty one wouldn't need theory to inform your choice, you
would directly by value.
Brent
Although Everett's argument (whose improvement I have proposed) grants
that in the long run (that is, large samples) the Born Rule is
practically certain to apply, this is not technically the same as
prob
bility.
Although Everett's argument (whose improvement I have proposed) grants that
in the long run (that is, large samples) the Born Rule is practically
certain to apply, this is not technically the same as probability for each
single outcome -- though I admit that it works the same, to trigger
to handle as a general concept
(except, on the other hand, that it requires new
dynamics). I forgot to mention that *my argument for
deriving the Born Rule works with collapse, too* -- so it
is an alternative to Gleason's theorem.
Here I
he faculty lounge at Princeton U. or
was it Teaneck?
-Original Message-
From: John Clark
To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
Sent: Tue, Apr 19, 2022 6:42 am
Subject: Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule
On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 2:17 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
&
>>> terms.
>>>
>>> Surely collapse is easier to handle as a general concept (except, on the
>>> other hand, that it requires new dynamics). I forgot to mention that *my
>>> argument for deriving the Born Rule works with collapse, too* -- so it
>&
n about decoherence but I see the glass as half-full; that is, with a
>> little more subtlety I hope that the matter can be formulated in clear
>> terms.
>>
>> Surely collapse is easier to handle as a general concept (except, on the
>> other hand, that i
in clear
> terms.
>
> Surely collapse is easier to handle as a general concept (except, on the
> other hand, that it requires new dynamics). I forgot to mention that *my
> argument for deriving the Born Rule works with collapse, too* -- so it is
> an alternative to Gleason's theore
ory
invokes quantum equilibrium, without which the Born rule will be
violated. And CI and MWI make different predictions for Deutsch-type
experiments.
While it's conventional to refer to these as interpretations, it's
similar to calling special relativity and ether theory differ
On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 3:55:20 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 5:46 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>> *> the SE wouldn't be time-dependent unless the SE is time-dependent.*
>>
>
> I can't argue with that, and a banana wouldn't be a banana unless a
> banana
ory
invokes quantum equilibrium, without which the Born rule will be
violated. And CI and MWI make different predictions for Deutsch-type
experiments.
While it's conventional to refer to these as interpretations, it's
similar to calling special relativity and ether theory differ
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 5:46 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
> *> the SE wouldn't be time-dependent unless the SE is time-dependent.*
>
I can't argue with that, and a banana wouldn't be a banana unless a banana
was a banana.
John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at Extropolis
On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 2:43:47 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 3:01 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> >> Schrödinger's Equation is time independent,
>>>
>>
>> *> Then why, for example, does the solution for a free particle spread
>> out as time progresses? AG *
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 3:01 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
>> Schrödinger's Equation is time independent,
>>
>
> *> Then why, for example, does the solution for a free particle spread out
> as time progresses? AG *
>
As time progresses things change, that is in fact what time means. So if
something
On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 10:59:20 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 12:42 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> >> I don't need to make an argument for that because the one and only
>>> assumption that Many Worlds makes, perhaps "axiom" would be a better word,
>>> is
On 4/19/2022 9:24 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 12:08 PM Alan Grayson
wrote:
>/ you claim, without argument, that all possible outcomes are
realized./
I don't need to make an argument for that because the one and only
assumption that Many Worlds makes, perhaps
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 12:42 PM Alan Grayson
wrote:
>> I don't need to make an argument for that because the one and only
>> assumption that Many Worlds makes, perhaps "axiom" would be a better word,
>> is that Schrödinger's Equation means what it says.
>>
>
> *> But S's equation just gives the
On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 10:24:51 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 12:08 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> >* you claim, without argument, that all possible outcomes are realized.*
>>
>
> I don't need to make an argument for that because the one and only
> assumption
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 12:08 PM Alan Grayson
wrote:
>* you claim, without argument, that all possible outcomes are realized.*
>
I don't need to make an argument for that because the one and only
assumption that Many Worlds makes, perhaps "axiom" would be a better word,
is that Schrödinger's
On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 9:53:06 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 11:31 AM Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> > * If S's equation represented a horse race, with probabilities changing
>> during the race -- of the order of final results -- why do you think the
>> race
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 11:31 AM Alan Grayson
wrote:
> * If S's equation represented a horse race, with probabilities changing
> during the race -- of the order of final results -- why do you think the
> race continues in other worlds, with all combinations of outcomes?*
Because until Alan
On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 4:43:00 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 2:17 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>>
> *> the Pilot Wave theory assumes each particle has a definite position and
>> momentum.*
>>
>
> That's true but unlike Many Worlds Pilot Wave theory is
On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 2:17 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
>
*> the Pilot Wave theory assumes each particle has a definite position and
> momentum.*
>
That's true but unlike Many Worlds Pilot Wave theory is non-local, it
postulates there is a mysterious force of some sort that is undiminished by
On 4/18/2022 5:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 3:18:43 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/18/2022 12:55 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:32:36 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 4/18/2022 11:17 AM, Alan
On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 3:18:43 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On 4/18/2022 12:55 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:32:36 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4/18/2022 11:17 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, April 18, 2022
On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 3:35:22 PM UTC+3 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG
>
I think I have come to a crisp understanding of this issue, which I want to
submit to you. However, we must take into consideration that the notion of
On 4/18/2022 12:55 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:32:36 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/18/2022 11:17 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:06:04 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 4/18/2022 5:35 AM, Alan
On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:32:36 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On 4/18/2022 11:17 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:06:04 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4/18/2022 5:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> But my main point is that
On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:32:36 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On 4/18/2022 11:17 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:06:04 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4/18/2022 5:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> But my main point is that
A deterministic clockwork universe vs a lawless universe (see Svozil,
Arxiv,2000). I think QM is in between.
--
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android Lunedì, 18 Aprile 2022, 02:35PM +02:00 da
Alan Grayson agrayson2...@gmail.com :
>
>
>On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 9:16:34 PM UTC-6
On 4/18/2022 11:17 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:06:04 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/18/2022 5:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
But my main point is that acausality is tantamount to
unintelligible. IMO, there's a huge difference between
On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:17:45 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:06:04 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4/18/2022 5:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> But my main point is that acausality is tantamount to unintelligible.
>>> IMO, there's a huge
On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:06:04 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On 4/18/2022 5:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> But my main point is that acausality is tantamount to unintelligible. IMO,
>> there's a huge difference between being unable to perfectly predict the
>> time evolution
On 4/18/2022 5:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
But my main point is that acausality is tantamount to
unintelligible. IMO, there's a huge difference between being
unable to perfectly predict the time evolution of a system, and
it being uncaused. AG
Is there? Even if the
On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 9:16:34 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On 4/17/2022 6:33 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> I was aware of the limitation on *precision* implied by the HUP. I was
> addressing whether *simultaneous* measurements are possible despite the
> HUP. I think they are
So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG
On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 9:16:34 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On 4/17/2022 6:33 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> I was aware of the limitation on *precision* implied by the HUP. I was
> addressing whether *simultaneous*
Meeker
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Apr 17, 2022 6:00 pm
Subject: Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule
On 4/17/2022 7:11 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
A simple example of your point is a gas at some temperature and pressure,
confined in some volume
On 4/17/2022 6:33 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
I was aware of the limitation on *precision* implied by the HUP. I was
addressing whether *simultaneous* measurements are possible despite
the HUP. I think they are possible.
The HUP directly refers ideal measurements which are preparations. Each
I was aware of the limitation on *precision* implied by the HUP. I was
addressing whether *simultaneous* measurements are possible despite the
HUP. I think they are possible. But my main point is that acausality is
tantamount to unintelligible. IMO, there's a huge difference between being
The authors point out that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle limits
the accuracy of determining initial conditions even if the physics of
evolution is perfectly deterministic.
I addressed your issue because you posted it here...as a courtesy. If
you don't want it addressed...why post it.
I meant, of course, CAUSAL*I*TY. AG
On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 5:11:58 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
> No. I didn't read your original post on this thread. But I see the authors
> assume quantum fluctuations, and therefore deny causalty. You get what you
> pay for. In my example, there surely
1 - 100 of 173 matches
Mail list logo
