Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12 Dec 2017, at 11:12, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 8:20 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Dec 2017, at 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2017,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/12/2017 9:44 pm, smitra wrote: On 12-12-2017 02:28, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 11:54 am, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 23:24, Bruce Kellett wrote: As I have said before, the biggest challenge for quantum physics is to explain the emergence of the classical world from the quantum

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/12/2017 9:46 pm, smitra wrote: On 12-12-2017 02:20, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 11:39 am, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 23:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 1:51 am, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 15:12, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12-12-2017 02:41, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:54 PM, smitra wrote: As I have said before, the biggest challenge for quantum physics is to explain the emergence of the classical world from the quantum substrate, so that classical calculations actually get the correct answers in those

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12-12-2017 02:20, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 11:39 am, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 23:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 1:51 am, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 15:12, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12-12-2017 02:28, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 11:54 am, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 23:24, Bruce Kellett wrote: As I have said before, the biggest challenge for quantum physics is to explain the emergence of the classical world from the quantum substrate, so that classical

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/12/2017 8:31 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Dec 2017, at 02:25, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 12:18 pm, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:04:08 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote: > On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/12/2017 8:26 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Dec 2017, at 02:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/12/2017 8:20 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Dec 2017, at 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12 Dec 2017, at 09:35, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 2:03:07 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: On 12/12/2017 12:29 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:25:11 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: On 12/12/2017 12:18 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12 Dec 2017, at 02:41, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:54 PM, smitra wrote: As I have said before, the biggest challenge for quantum physics is to explain the emergence of the classical world from the quantum substrate, so that classical calculations actually get the correct

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12 Dec 2017, at 02:25, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 12:18 pm, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:04:08 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote: > On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12 Dec 2017, at 02:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11 Dec 2017, at 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Similarly, a

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 8:35:50 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 2:03:07 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> On 12/12/2017 12:29 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:25:11 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On 12/12/2017

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 2:03:07 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On 12/12/2017 12:29 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:25:11 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> On 12/12/2017 12:18 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:04:08 AM UTC,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/12/2017 12:35 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:44 PM, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: ... Rubbish. The central point of contention on this thread is whether a coin toss can be regarded as a classical event, with probabilities given by ignorance of the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/11/2017 6:02 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 12:29 pm, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:25:11 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: On 12/12/2017 12:18 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:04:08 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/12/2017 12:29 pm, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:25:11 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: On 12/12/2017 12:18 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:04:08 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote: >

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:29:17 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:25:11 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> On 12/12/2017 12:18 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:04:08 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On 12/12/2017

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/11/2017 4:54 PM, smitra wrote: As I have said before, the biggest challenge for quantum physics is to explain the emergence of the classical world from the quantum substrate, so that classical calculations actually get the correct answers in those classical situations. If you do not

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/11/2017 4:44 PM, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: ... Rubbish. The central point of contention on this thread is whether a coin toss can be regarded as a classical event, with probabilities given by ignorance of the initial conditions, or as a quantum event with

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:25:11 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On 12/12/2017 12:18 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:04:08 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote: >> > On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> On

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/12/2017 11:54 am, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 23:24, Bruce Kellett wrote: As I have said before, the biggest challenge for quantum physics is to explain the emergence of the classical world from the quantum substrate, so that classical calculations actually get the correct answers in

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/12/2017 12:18 pm, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:04:08 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote: > On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/12/2017 11:39 am, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 23:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 1:51 am, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 15:12, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:04:08 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote: > > On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >>> On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11-12-2017 23:24, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 10:30 pm, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 03:08, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 12:21 pm, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: What you have to do if you want to claim that all chance outcomes are of quantum origin

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Similarly, a shroedinger

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11-12-2017 23:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/12/2017 1:51 am, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 15:12, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/12/2017 10:30 pm, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 03:08, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 12:21 pm, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: What you have to do if you want to claim that all chance outcomes are of quantum origin is compare the relative magnitudes of

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Similarly, a shroedinger car, once alive + dead, will never become

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/12/2017 1:51 am, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 15:12, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Similarly, a shroedinger car,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/11/2017 12:11 PM, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 20:03, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/11/2017 3:48 AM, smitra wrote: On 10-12-2017 23:09, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/10/2017 4:42 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 21:18, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/9/2017 4:00 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 12:01,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 5:26:32 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:15 AM, wrote: > > ​> ​ >> The fundamental unproven assumption, and IMO the core fallacy of the MWI, >> is the belief that what CAN occur, necessarily MUST will occur. >> > > The

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11-12-2017 20:03, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/11/2017 3:48 AM, smitra wrote: On 10-12-2017 23:09, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/10/2017 4:42 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 21:18, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/9/2017 4:00 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 12:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 9:44

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/11/2017 3:48 AM, smitra wrote: On 10-12-2017 23:09, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/10/2017 4:42 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 21:18, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/9/2017 4:00 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 12:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 9:44 pm, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11-12-2017 15:12, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Similarly, a shroedinger car, once alive + dead, will never become

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11 Dec 2017, at 03:04, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/10/2017 5:23 PM, smitra wrote: On 10-12-2017 22:55, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/10/2017 4:06 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 21:12, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/9/2017 2:36 AM, smitra wrote: Yes, it's a different argument but it's also

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Similarly, a shroedinger car, once alive + dead, will never become a pure alive, or dead cat. It will only

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:22, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/10/2017 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2017, at 01:40, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/8/2017 4:27 PM, smitra wrote: On 08-12-2017 01:46, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 11:43 am, smitra wrote: On 08-12-2017 00:22, Bruce

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 10-12-2017 23:09, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/10/2017 4:42 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 21:18, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/9/2017 4:00 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 12:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 9:44 pm, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 02:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11-12-2017 03:08, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/12/2017 12:21 pm, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: What you have to do if you want to claim that all chance outcomes are of quantum origin is compare the relative magnitudes of quantum and thermal fluctuations at room

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/12/2017 12:21 pm, smitra wrote: On 11-12-2017 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: What you have to do if you want to claim that all chance outcomes are of quantum origin is compare the relative magnitudes of quantum and thermal fluctuations at room temperature -- room temperature because that is

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/10/2017 5:23 PM, smitra wrote: On 10-12-2017 22:55, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/10/2017 4:06 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 21:12, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/9/2017 2:36 AM, smitra wrote: Yes, it's a different argument but it's also generically correct. But I do think for the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 10-12-2017 22:55, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/10/2017 4:06 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 21:12, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/9/2017 2:36 AM, smitra wrote: Yes, it's a different argument but it's also generically correct. But I do think for the discussions in this list it doesn't matter all

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11-12-2017 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 10/12/2017 11:06 pm, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 21:12, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/9/2017 2:36 AM, smitra wrote: Yes, it's a different argument but it's also generically correct. But I do think for the discussions in this list it doesn't matter all

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/10/2017 9:26 AM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:15 AM, >wrote: ​> ​ The fundamental unproven assumption, and IMO the core fallacy of the MWI, is the belief that what CAN occur, necessarily MUST will

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Similarly, a shroedinger car, once alive + dead, will never become a pure alive, or dead cat. It will only seems so for anyone looking at the cat, in the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/10/2017 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2017, at 01:40, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/8/2017 4:27 PM, smitra wrote: On 08-12-2017 01:46, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 11:43 am, smitra wrote: On 08-12-2017 00:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/10/2017 4:42 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 21:18, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/9/2017 4:00 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 12:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 9:44 pm, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 02:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 11:49 am, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/10/2017 4:06 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 21:12, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/9/2017 2:36 AM, smitra wrote: Yes, it's a different argument but it's also generically correct. But I do think for the discussions in this list it doesn't matter all that much whether an initial single

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 09 Dec 2017, at 21:07, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/9/2017 2:22 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 02:03, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/8/2017 4:49 PM, smitra wrote: It's not irrelevant if you don't have the information that locates you in a sector where the uncertainties are indeed small

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:15 AM, wrote: ​> ​ > The fundamental unproven assumption, and IMO the core fallacy of the MWI, > is the belief that what CAN occur, necessarily MUST will occur. > The ​ ​ fundamental ​ ​ assumption of the MWI is that the ​ ​ Schrodinger ​Wave

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 09 Dec 2017, at 13:00, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 12:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 9:44 pm, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 02:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 11:49 am, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 09 Dec 2017, at 11:29, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 02:15, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/8/2017 4:49 PM, smitra wrote: If this were not true then each single conscious experience would contain in it information about such things as the exact number of atoms in the Earth, Sun etc. etc.

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 09 Dec 2017, at 02:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 11:49 am, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Dec 2017, at 00:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2017, at 12:19,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 09 Dec 2017, at 02:15, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/8/2017 4:49 PM, smitra wrote: If this were not true then each single conscious experience would contain in it information about such things as the exact number of atoms in the Earth, Sun etc. etc. That sounds like a reductio against

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 09 Dec 2017, at 01:40, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/8/2017 4:27 PM, smitra wrote: On 08-12-2017 01:46, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 11:43 am, smitra wrote: On 08-12-2017 00:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2017, at 12:19, Bruce Kellett

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Dec 2017, at 00:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2017, at 12:19, Bruce Kellett wrote: But as I pointed out, thermal motion gives momenta of

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 09-12-2017 21:18, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/9/2017 4:00 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 12:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 9:44 pm, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 02:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 11:49 am, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 09-12-2017 21:12, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/9/2017 2:36 AM, smitra wrote: Yes, it's a different argument but it's also generically correct. But I do think for the discussions in this list it doesn't matter all that much whether an initial single branch will diverge into multiple branches

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 3:26:52 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On 10/12/2017 10:02 am, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, December 8, 2017 at 6:19:20 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> On 12/8/2017 12:01 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 11:54:39 PM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 02:22:36PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 10/12/2017 12:36 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 12/9/2017 1:38 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > > > So, when you project the global quantum state on the subspace > > > spanned by b > > > > I don't understand "subspace spanned by

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 10/12/2017 10:02 am, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, December 8, 2017 at 6:19:20 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 12/8/2017 12:01 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 11:54:39 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: On 8/12/2017 10:40 am, agrays...@gmail.com

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 10/12/2017 12:36 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/9/2017 1:38 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: So, when you project the global quantum state on the subspace spanned by b I don't understand "subspace spanned by b" where b is a bitstring? Does it mean the subspace for which b is true...when b is

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/9/2017 1:38 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: So, when you project the global quantum state on the subspace spanned by b I don't understand "subspace spanned by b" where b is a bitstring? Does it mean the subspace for which b is true...when b is interpreted in some way in terms of the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Friday, December 8, 2017 at 6:19:20 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/8/2017 12:01 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 11:54:39 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> On 8/12/2017 10:40 am, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 4:44:01 PM

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 9/12/2017 11:00 pm, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 12:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 9:44 pm, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 02:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 11:49 am, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Dec

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/9/2017 4:00 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 12:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 9:44 pm, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 02:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 11:49 am, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Dec

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/9/2017 2:36 AM, smitra wrote: Yes, it's a different argument but it's also generically correct. But I do think for the discussions in this list it doesn't matter all that much whether an initial single branch will diverge into multiple branches due to effectively classical dynamics.

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/9/2017 2:22 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 02:03, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/8/2017 4:49 PM, smitra wrote: It's not irrelevant if you don't have the information that locates you in a sector where the uncertainties are indeed small enough. You have to start with the complete state in

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 09-12-2017 12:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 9:44 pm, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 02:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 11:49 am, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Dec 2017, at 00:22, Bruce Kellett wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 9/12/2017 9:44 pm, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 02:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 11:49 am, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Dec 2017, at 00:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 09-12-2017 02:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 11:49 am, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Dec 2017, at 00:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2017, at 12:19, Bruce

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 09-12-2017 02:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 11:27 am, smitra wrote: On 08-12-2017 01:46, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 11:43 am, smitra wrote: On 08-12-2017 00:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2017, at 12:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 09-12-2017 02:15, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/8/2017 4:49 PM, smitra wrote: If this were not true then each single conscious experience would contain in it information about such things as the exact  number of atoms in the Earth, Sun etc. etc. That sounds like a reductio against the comp

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 09-12-2017 02:05, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/8/2017 4:55 PM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 01:40, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/8/2017 4:27 PM, smitra wrote: On 08-12-2017 01:46, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 11:43 am, smitra wrote: On 08-12-2017 00:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 09-12-2017 02:03, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/8/2017 4:49 PM, smitra wrote: It's not irrelevant if you don't have the information that locates you in a sector where the uncertainties are indeed small enough. You have to start with the complete state in the bird's view, and then consider the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 9/12/2017 11:27 am, smitra wrote: On 08-12-2017 01:46, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 11:43 am, smitra wrote: On 08-12-2017 00:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2017, at 12:19, Bruce Kellett wrote: But as I pointed out, thermal motion gives

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 9/12/2017 11:49 am, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Dec 2017, at 00:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2017, at 12:19, Bruce Kellett wrote: But as I pointed out, thermal

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/8/2017 4:49 PM, smitra wrote: If this were not true then each single conscious experience would contain in it information about such things as the exact  number of atoms in the Earth, Sun etc. etc. That sounds like a reductio against the comp theory of consciousness. Brent -- You

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/8/2017 4:55 PM, smitra wrote: On 09-12-2017 01:40, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/8/2017 4:27 PM, smitra wrote: On 08-12-2017 01:46, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 11:43 am, smitra wrote: On 08-12-2017 00:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/8/2017 4:49 PM, smitra wrote: It's not irrelevant if you don't have the information that locates you in a sector where the uncertainties are indeed small enough. You have to start with the complete state in the bird's view, and then consider the sector where you have some definite

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 09-12-2017 01:40, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/8/2017 4:27 PM, smitra wrote: On 08-12-2017 01:46, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 11:43 am, smitra wrote: On 08-12-2017 00:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2017, at 12:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 09-12-2017 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Dec 2017, at 00:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2017, at 12:19, Bruce Kellett wrote: But as I pointed out, thermal motion gives momenta of magnitudes such

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/8/2017 4:27 PM, smitra wrote: On 08-12-2017 01:46, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 11:43 am, smitra wrote: On 08-12-2017 00:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2017, at 12:19, Bruce Kellett wrote: But as I pointed out, thermal motion gives

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 08-12-2017 03:38, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/7/2017 4:43 PM, smitra wrote: On 08-12-2017 00:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2017, at 12:19, Bruce Kellett wrote: But as I pointed out, thermal motion gives momenta of magnitudes such that the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 08-12-2017 01:46, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 11:43 am, smitra wrote: On 08-12-2017 00:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2017, at 12:19, Bruce Kellett wrote: But as I pointed out, thermal motion gives momenta of magnitudes such that the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Dec 2017, at 00:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2017, at 12:19, Bruce Kellett wrote: But as I pointed out, thermal motion gives momenta of magnitudes such that the quantum uncertainties are

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/8/2017 12:01 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 11:54:39 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: On 8/12/2017 10:40 am, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 4:44:01 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: Yes, but only if the phase are

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 08 Dec 2017, at 00:40, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 4:44:01 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Dec 2017, at 00:12, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 4:01:31 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Dec 2017, at 11:32,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 08 Dec 2017, at 00:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2017, at 12:19, Bruce Kellett wrote: But as I pointed out, thermal motion gives momenta of magnitudes such that the quantum uncertainties are negligible compared to the thermal randomness.

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 8/12/2017 7:01 pm, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 11:54:39 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: On 8/12/2017 10:40 am, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 4:44:01 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: Yes, but only if the phase are

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 8/12/2017 6:26 pm, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 11:50:41 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: On 1/12/2017 10:43 am, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 5:20:51 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, November 30, 2017

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 11:54:39 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On 8/12/2017 10:40 am, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 4:44:01 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> >> Yes, but only if the phase are indeed different at each slits, I would >> say. The

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 11:50:41 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On 1/12/2017 10:43 am, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 5:20:51 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 11:16:07 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Friday, December 8, 2017 at 3:45:26 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:57 PM, > wrote: > > ​>​ >> The weak case for the MWI stands on its own; nothing to do with string >> theory. In the latter, if you believe it, there are some number, possibly

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 8/12/2017 11:46 am, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 11:43 am, smitra wrote: On 08-12-2017 00:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/12/2017 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2017, at 12:19, Bruce Kellett wrote: But as I pointed out, thermal motion gives momenta of magnitudes such that the

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >