Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 09:39:06AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: > From: Bruno Marchal > > > If there is a FTL physical influence, even if there is no information > transfer possible, it leads to big problems with any reality > interpretation > of special relativity, notably well d

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:39 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > From: Bruno Marchal > > > If there is a FTL physical influence, even if there is no information > transfer possible, it leads to big problems with any reality interpretation > of special relativity, notably well described by Maudlin. Maudlin

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 6:39:11 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > > > > If there is a FTL physical influence, even if there is no information > transfer possible, it leads to big problems with any reality interpretation > of special relativity, notably well described by Maudl

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Russell Standish* > On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 09:39:06AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> > > >     If there is a FTL physical influence, even if there is no information >     transfer possible, it leads to big proble

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 11:09:37AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: > From: Russell Standish > > > On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 09:39:06AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > > > >    > >     If there is a FTL physical influence, even if there is no > information >

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/7/2018 5:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:39 PM Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> If there is a FTL physical influence, even if there is no information transfer possible, it leads t

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/7/2018 6:51 PM, Russell Standish wrote: "Yes, Doctor" appears to wrap up the idea that the computational mind cannot be in superposition of mind states, supporting Albert and Loewer's position over that of primitive physical supervenience. Nevertheless, physical supervenie

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 9:05 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 8/7/2018 5:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:39 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> From: Bruno Marchal >> >> >> If there is a FTL physical influence, even if there is no information >> transfer possible, it leads t

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 8 Aug 2018, at 01:39, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >> >> If there is a FTL physical influence, even if there is no information >> transfer possible, it leads to big problems with any reality interpretation >> of special relativity, notably well

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 8 Aug 2018, at 02:20, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 09:39:06AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> From: Bruno Marchal >> >> >>If there is a FTL physical influence, even if there is no information >>transfer possible, it leads to big problems with any reality >

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 8 Aug 2018, at 03:51, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 11:09:37AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> From: Russell Standish >> >> >>On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 09:39:06AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> From: Bruno Marchal >>> >>> >>> If there is a FTL physical

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 8 Aug 2018, at 01:39, Bruce Kellett > wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> If there is a FTL physical influence, even if there is no information transfer possible, it leads to big problem

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 8 Aug 2018, at 13:50, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 8 Aug 2018, at 01:39, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> If there is a FTL physical influence, eve

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/8/2018 10:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 8 Aug 2018, at 13:50, Bruce Kellett > wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 8 Aug 2018, at 01:39, Bruce Kellett > wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 5:46:22 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 8 Aug 2018, at 13:50, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > > > On 8 Aug 2018, at 01:39, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > > > > If there is a FTL physical influence, even if there is no info

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 11:07:16AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 8 Aug 2018, at 02:20, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > needs to be abandoned, though. The only additional feature of the > > phenomenal physics is the existence of random oracles, which does not > > enlarge the class of com

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 8 Aug 2018, at 13:50, Bruce Kellett > wrote: The real problem I see with many-minds theory is that it does not actually explain the observed correlations. The correlations are presumed not to exist in reality -

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 8 Aug 2018, at 21:28, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/8/2018 10:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 8 Aug 2018, at 13:50, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> > On 8 Aug 2018, at 01:39, Bruce Kellett >>

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 9 Aug 2018, at 02:02, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 5:46:22 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 8 Aug 2018, at 13:50, Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >> >> From: Bruno Marchal > On 8 Aug 2018, at 01:39, Bruce Kellett >>> > wrote: From: Br

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 9 Aug 2018, at 02:03, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 11:07:16AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 8 Aug 2018, at 02:20, Russell Standish wrote: >>> >>> needs to be abandoned, though. The only additional feature of the >>> phenomenal physics is the existence of

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 9 Aug 2018, at 06:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 8 Aug 2018, at 13:50, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> The real problem I see with many-minds theory is that it does not actually >>> explain the observed cor

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/9/2018 1:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But because particle 2 is intrinsically entangled with particle 1, any interaction with one particle necessarily affects the other particle. I don’t see why you say this, except that you talk like if Bob and Alice where related to the same branch,

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 9 Aug 2018, at 06:55, Bruce Kellett > wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 8 Aug 2018, at 13:50, Bruce Kellett > wrote: The real problem I see with many-m

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 7:32:07 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 9 Aug 2018, at 02:02, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 5:46:22 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 8 Aug 2018, at 13:50, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> From: Bruno Marchal >> >> On 8

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 9 Aug 2018, at 12:02, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/9/2018 1:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> But because particle 2 is intrinsically entangled with particle 1, any >>> interaction with one particle necessarily affects the other particle. >> >> I don’t see why you say this, except th

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 9 Aug 2018, at 14:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 9 Aug 2018, at 06:55, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> > On 8 Aug 2018, at 13:50, Bruce Kellett

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 9 Aug 2018, at 18:50, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 7:32:07 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 9 Aug 2018, at 02:02, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 5:46:22 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 8 Aug 20

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 4:01:37 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 9 Aug 2018, at 18:50, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 7:32:07 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 9 Aug 2018, at 02:02, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, August 8

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 9 Aug 2018, at 14:03, Bruce Kellett > wrote: The original Alice and Bob are those in the same branch of the wave function all the way along. There are no unmatched Alices or Bobs. In each branch, I agree. Bu

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 9 Aug 2018, at 14:03, Bruce Kellett > wrote: Without collapse and FTL potential, or FTL (non-local) hidden variable theory, how do you interpret the singlet state? That is actually a rather strange question.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> You are the one telling that the Bell’s inequality violation entails FTL influence. Personally, I do not dig on that issue, because I use only Everett QM to evaluate what mechanism predicts. I might try to send a post why I do not follow your cr

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 8:05:56 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 4:01:37 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 9 Aug 2018, at 18:50, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 7:32:07 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>>

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 10 Aug 2018, at 22:05, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 4:01:37 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 9 Aug 2018, at 18:50, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 7:32:07 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 9 Aug 201

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:29, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 9 Aug 2018, at 14:03, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>> The original Alice and Bob are those in the same branch of the wave >>> function all the way alon

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >> On 9 Aug 2018, at 14:03, Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >>> Without collapse and FTL potential, or FTL (non-local) hidden variable theory, how do you int

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:57, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> > >> You are the one telling that the Bell’s inequality violation entails FTL >> influence. Personally, I do not dig on that issue, because I use only >> Everett QM to evaluate what mechanism p

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 9:55:39 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 10 Aug 2018, at 22:05, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 4:01:37 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 9 Aug 2018, at 18:50, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, August 9,

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:29, Bruce Kellett > wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 9 Aug 2018, at 14:03, Bruce Kellett > wrote: The original Alice and Bob are

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 12:01:56 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 9:55:39 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 10 Aug 2018, at 22:05, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 4:01:37 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>>

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 4:26:39 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 12:01:56 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 9:55:39 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 10 Aug 2018, at 22:05, agrays...@gmail.com wrote

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 4:44:18 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 4:26:39 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 12:01:56 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 9:55:39 AM

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:49, Bruce Kellett > wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 9 Aug 2018, at 14:03, Bruce Kellett > wrote: Without collapse and FTL potent

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:57, Bruce Kellett > wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> You are the one telling that the Bell’s inequality violation entails FTL influence. Personally, I do not dig on t

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 6:51:23 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 4:44:18 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 4:26:39 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 12:01:56 PM

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 10:56:00 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > > > On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:57, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > > > You are the one telling that the Bell’s inequality violation entails FTL > influence. Personally, I do not dig on that issue,

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/12/2018 9:26 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: *I meant to write; Just DO the math! Since QM allows the probability calculation for the double slit from minus to plus infinitely for any moment in time, it means we have and know the data simultaneously for all positions on the screen. Thi

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:06 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:29, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > > On 9 Aug 2018, at 14:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > The original Alice and Bob are those in the same branch of the wave > function all the way along. There are no

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:06 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:29, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: They do not "belong to different branches" because they do not

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 2:10:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 8/12/2018 9:26 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > *I meant to write; Just DO the math! Since QM allows the probability > calculation for the double slit from minus to plus infinitely for any > moment in time, it means we hav

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/12/2018 10:13 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 2:10:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 8/12/2018 9:26 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: *I meant to write; Just DO the math! Since QM allows the probability calculation for the double slit from minus to

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 12 Aug 2018, at 14:59, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:29, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> > On 9 Aug 2018, at 14:03, Bruce Kellett

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 13 Aug 2018, at 00:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:49, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 9 Aug 2018, at 14:03, Bruce Kellett >>>

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 13 Aug 2018, at 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:57, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> You are the one telling that the Bell’s

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:05 AM Bruce Kellett wrote: > From: Jason Resch > > > On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:06 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:29, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >> They do not "belong to different branches" because they do not exist, and >> have never existed.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 13 Aug 2018, at 03:32, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 6:51:23 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 4:44:18 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote: > > > On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 4:26:39 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.co

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/13/2018 6:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ...the measure on the set of branches are always 2^(aleph_0), and the measure is given by the square of the the amplitude of probability. ?? 2^(aleph_0) is never the square of the amplitude of probability. Brent -- You received this message becau

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 2:27:55 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:05 AM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> From: Jason Resch > >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:06 AM Bruno Marchal > > wrote: >> >>> >>> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:29, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>> They do not

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/13/2018 6:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The wave function is not a "physical" object -- it can easily change instantaneously, just as probabilities change on the advent of new information. Then we are no more in Everett non-collapse QM, and I am not sure how you can explain the double s

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/13/2018 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: I bring this question up because you repeatedly refer to only "one Alice" before the measurement, and also say that Alice and Bob are "in one and the same branch" prior to measurement.  But normal QM without collapse would say Alice and Bob are branch

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 5:51:17 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 8/12/2018 10:13 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 2:10:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 8/12/2018 9:26 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> *I meant to write; Just DO the math! Since Q

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 10:20:09 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 5:51:17 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 8/12/2018 10:13 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 2:10:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8/1

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/13/2018 3:20 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: If you start with impossible initial conditions you get impossible results.  Doesn't mean the theory is wrong. Brent What are the impossible initial conditions? AG You apparently contemplated a perfectly

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:05 AM Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:06 AM Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: On 11

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 4:32 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 8/13/2018 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > I bring this question up because you repeatedly refer to only "one > > Alice" before the measurement, and also say that Alice and Bob are "in > > one and the same branch" prior to measurement.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 06:58, wrote: > > > On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 2:27:55 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:05 AM Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> From: Jason Resch >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:06 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 11 Aug 2018, at

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 12 Aug 2018, at 14:59, Bruce Kellett > wrote: No, Price is wrong. He collapses the wave function in a non-local manner, even though he doesn't seem to realize it. Let me try again. The state is     |psi>= (|u

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 13 Aug 2018, at 00:48, Bruce Kellett > wrote: but the FTL are needed only if we associate the mind on Bob and Alice to the same branche, which has no meaning for me once they are space separated. You might

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/13/2018 6:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 4:32 PM Brent Meeker > wrote: On 8/13/2018 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > I bring this question up because you repeatedly refer to only "one > Alice" before the measurement, and also s

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 13 Aug 2018, at 00:55, Bruce Kellett > wrote: Baylock made valiant attempts to introduce some measurements that were not made in order to show that Bell assumed counterfactual definiteness, but his attempts t

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 13 Aug 2018, at 19:59, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/13/2018 6:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> ...the measure on the set of branches are always 2^(aleph_0), and the >> measure is given by the square of the the amplitude of probability. > > ?? 2^(aleph_0) is never the square of the a

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 13 Aug 2018, at 23:19, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/13/2018 6:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> The wave function is not a "physical" object -- it can easily change >>> instantaneously, just as probabilities change on the advent of new >>> information. >> >> Then we are no more in E

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 13 Aug 2018, at 23:32, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/13/2018 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> I bring this question up because you repeatedly refer to only "one Alice" >> before the measurement, and also say that Alice and Bob are "in one and the >> same branch" prior to measurement.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 14 Aug 2018, at 01:06, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/13/2018 3:20 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com > wrote: >>> If you start with impossible initial conditions you get impossible results. >>> Doesn't mean the theory is wrong. >>> >>> Brent >>> >>> What ar

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 14 Aug 2018, at 03:31, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 4:32 PM Brent Meeker > wrote: > > > On 8/13/2018 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > I bring this question up because you repeatedly refer to only "one > > Alice" before the measurement,

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 14 Aug 2018, at 04:01, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 06:58, > wrote: > > > On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 2:27:55 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:05 AM Bruce Kellett > > wrote: > From: Jason Resch > >>

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 14 Aug 2018, at 04:12, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 12 Aug 2018, at 14:59, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> No, Price is wrong. He collapses the wave function in a non-local manner, >>> even though he doesn't

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 14 Aug 2018, at 04:30, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 13 Aug 2018, at 00:48, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: > but the FTL are needed only if we associate the mind on Bob and Alice to the same branche, w

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 14 Aug 2018, at 06:05, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/13/2018 6:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 4:32 PM Brent Meeker > > wrote: >> >> >> On 8/13/2018 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> > I bring this question up because you repeate

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 11:06:22 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 8/13/2018 3:20 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > If you start with impossible initial conditions you get impossible >>> results. Doesn't mean the theory is wrong. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> What are the impossible initial con

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 14 Aug 2018, at 06:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 13 Aug 2018, at 00:55, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >> > Baylock made valiant attempts to introduce some measurements that were > not made in order

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 1:20:26 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: Jason Resch > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:05 AM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> From: Jason Resch > >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:06 AM Bruno Marchal > > wrote: >> >>> >>> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:29, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 2:02:05 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: > > > > On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 06:58, > wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 2:27:55 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:05 AM Bruce Kellett >>> wrote: >>> From: Jason Resch >>>

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/14/2018 2:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: kicking back of the fact that we have to take account the wave structure integrally. If you read words metaphorically then you can make them mean anything. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Eve

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/14/2018 2:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Aug 2018, at 23:32, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/13/2018 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: I bring this question up because you repeatedly refer to only "one Alice" before the measurement, and also say that Alice and Bob are "in one and the same bra

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/14/2018 2:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: With Mechanism, the reason why an electron seem to pass through two holes at once is due to the fact that my consciousness is independent of which path the particle is taking. The reason why that interfere is provided by the logic of self-reference

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/14/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: How do you explain interference fringes in the two slits? How do you explain the different behaviour of u+d and a mixture of u and d. If the wave is not real, how doe it interfere even when we are not there? How does it interfere with itself unles

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 11:00:23 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 1:20:26 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: Jason Resch >> >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:05 AM Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> From: Jason Resch >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 at 3:30 am, wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 2:02:05 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 06:58, wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 2:27:55 PM UTC, Jason wrote: On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:05 AM Bruce Kellett

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 14 Aug 2018, at 04:30, Bruce Kellett > wrote: If they are space separated, I am not sure I can make sense of being in the same branch. You appear to be referring to the presence of quantum fluctuations cont

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 14 Aug 2018, at 04:12, Bruce Kellett > wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 12 Aug 2018, at 14:59, Bruce Kellett > wrote: No, Price is wrong. He collapses

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 14 Aug 2018, at 20:09, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/14/2018 2:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> kicking back of the fact that we have to take account the wave structure >> integrally. > > If you read words metaphorically then you can make them mean anything. The whole point is that

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 14 Aug 2018, at 20:19, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/14/2018 2:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 13 Aug 2018, at 23:32, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8/13/2018 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: I bring this question up because you repeatedly refer to only "one Alice" >>>

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 14 Aug 2018, at 20:26, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/14/2018 2:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> With Mechanism, the reason why an electron seem to pass through two holes at >> once is due to the fact that my consciousness is independent of which path >> the particle is taking. The rea

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:12, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/14/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> How do you explain interference fringes in the two slits? How do you explain >> the different behaviour of u+d and a mixture of u and d. >> >> If the wave is not real, how doe it interfere

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 9:01:25 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 11:00:23 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 1:20:26 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> From: Jason Resch >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:05 AM

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 15 Aug 2018, at 01:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 14 Aug 2018, at 04:30, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> If they are space separated, I am not sure I can make sense of being in the same branch. >

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 9:58:57 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:12, Brent Meeker > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 8/14/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> How do you explain interference fringes in the two slits? How do you > explain the different behavio

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 10:22:40 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 9:58:57 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> > On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:12, Brent Meeker wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On 8/14/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> How do you

Re:: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 15 Aug 2018, at 01:48, Bruce Kellett > wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 14 Aug 2018, at 04:30, Bruce Kellett > wrote: If they are space separated, I

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 15 Aug 2018, at 12:22, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 9:58:57 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:12, Brent Meeker > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 8/14/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> How do you explain interferenc

  1   2   3   >