Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 5:38:23 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > > Non-locality. As Zeilinger says: "Any explanation of what goes on in a > specific individual observation of one photon has to take into account the > whole experimental apparatus of the complete quantum state consisting of

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 29 Nov 2017, at 23:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 30/11/2017 2:24 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Nov 2017, at 04:59, Bruce Kellett wrote: I would suggest that there is no such world. Whether a coin comes up head or tails on a simple toss is not a quantum event; it is determined by quite

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 29 Nov 2017, at 22:57, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 30/11/2017 5:53 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 11:10 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 5:28 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 8:51 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 3:22 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 7:59 PM,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 29 Nov 2017, at 22:55, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 9:14:48 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 8:44:18 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 5:29:01 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 11:42:51 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On 30/11/2017 10:32 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 4:08:20 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote: >> >> On 30/11/2017 9:53 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 10:40:36

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 30/11/2017 10:32 pm, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 4:08:20 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote: On 30/11/2017 9:53 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 10:40:36 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: On 30/11/2017 5:31 am, John Clark

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 30/11/2017 10:18 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2017-11-30 12:08 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett >: On 30/11/2017 9:53 pm, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 10:40:36

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 4:08:20 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote: > > On 30/11/2017 9:53 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 10:40:36 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On 30/11/2017 5:31 am, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Bruce Kellett

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

2017-11-30 12:08 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett : > On 30/11/2017 9:53 pm, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 10:40:36 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> On 30/11/2017 5:31 am, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Bruce Kellett

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 30/11/2017 9:53 pm, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 10:40:36 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: On 30/11/2017 5:31 am, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: ​ >​

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 10:40:36 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On 30/11/2017 5:31 am, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > > ​ >​ > ​I see no reason all the Everett worlds have the same physics, > > > ​ > ​ >

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 29 Nov 2017, at 19:53, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 11:10 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 5:28 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 8:51 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 3:22 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 7:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 2:29 pm,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:21, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 3:24:38 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Nov 2017, at 04:59, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 2:29 pm, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/29/2017 10:17 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 6:09:26 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 11/29/2017 9:34 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 5:21:40 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/29/2017 1:57 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: I don't see that superdeterminism is ruled out, or can be ruled out by experience.  Experience would seem to rule out MWI too, because like superdeterminism it posits stuff that can't be experienced: superdeterminism because the don't happen, MWI

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 6:09:26 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/29/2017 9:34 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 5:21:40 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 8:44:18 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/29/2017 9:34 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 5:21:40 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 8:44:18 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 5:29:01 PM UTC, John

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 5:21:40 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 8:44:18 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 5:29:01 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:51 PM,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 8:44:18 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 5:29:01 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:51 PM, wrote: >> >> >>> ​> ​ >>> If, as you claim, any fundamental parameters can

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/29/2017 6:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Nov 2017, at 02:19, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 7:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Nov 2017, at 23:02, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/27/2017 10:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The formal modal formula is B(Bp -> p) -> Bp. It looks

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 29/11/2017 9:29 pm, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: Quote. " With our ideal realization of the delayed-choice entanglement swapping gedanken experiment, we have demonstrated a generalization of Wheeler’s “delayed-choice” tests, going from the wave-particle duality of a single particle

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 30/11/2017 5:31 am, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: ​ >​ ​I see no reason all the Everett worlds have the same physics, ​ > ​ Everettian worlds follow from

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 30/11/2017 2:24 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Nov 2017, at 04:59, Bruce Kellett wrote: I would suggest that there is no such world. Whether a coin comes up head or tails on a simple toss is not a quantum event; it is determined by quite classical laws of physics governing initial

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 30/11/2017 5:53 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 11:10 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 5:28 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 8:51 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 3:22 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 7:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 2:29 pm, John

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 9:14:48 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 8:44:18 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 5:29:01 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:51 PM,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 8:44:18 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 5:29:01 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:51 PM, wrote: >> >> >>> ​> ​ >>> If, as you claim, any fundamental parameters can

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 5:29:01 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:51 PM, > wrote: > > >> ​> ​ >> If, as you claim, any fundamental parameters can exist, >> > > ​ > That > ​ is NOT​ > ​ > what I claimed > ​.​ > I claimed any > ​ ​f >

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/28/2017 11:10 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 5:28 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 8:51 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 3:22 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 7:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 2:29 pm, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:05

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > ​>​ >> ​I see no reason all the Everett worlds have the same physics, > > > ​> ​ > Everettian worlds follow from assuming that the Schrödinger equation > applies everywhere without exception, so that all

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:51 PM, wrote: > ​> ​ > If, as you claim, any fundamental parameters can exist, > ​ That ​ is NOT​ ​ what I claimed ​.​ I claimed any ​ ​f undamental parameter ​ that​ can exist ​ does exist, I did NOT ​claim any ​ ​f undamental parameter can

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​> ​ > Everett just takes the Schrodinger equation of evolution according to some > Hamiltionian. The Hamiltonian doesn't change the physical > constants...that's why they're called constants. The ​ ​ Hubble ​ ​

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 3:24:38 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 29 Nov 2017, at 04:59, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 29/11/2017 2:29 pm, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker < > meek...@verizon.net > wrote: > > ​ >> ​ > And how is the Eternal

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 29 Nov 2017, at 04:59, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 2:29 pm, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​ >> ​ And how is the Eternal Inflation Multiverse fundamentally different from the String Theory Multiverse? ​ ​ > ​ I

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 29 Nov 2017, at 02:19, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 7:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Nov 2017, at 23:02, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/27/2017 10:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The formal modal formula is B(Bp -> p) -> Bp. It looks also like wishful thinking. If you succeed in

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

Quote. " With our ideal realization of the delayed-choice entanglement swapping gedanken experiment, we have demonstrated a generalization of Wheeler’s “delayed-choice” tests, going from the wave-particle duality of a single particle to the entanglement-separability duality of two particles.

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 29/11/2017 7:49 pm, smitra wrote: On 29-11-2017 08:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 5:28 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 8:51 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 3:22 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 7:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 2:29 pm, John Clark wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 29-11-2017 08:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 5:28 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 8:51 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 3:22 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 7:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 2:29 pm, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 29/11/2017 5:28 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 8:51 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 3:22 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 7:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 2:29 pm, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/28/2017 8:51 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 3:22 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 7:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 2:29 pm, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​ >> ​ And how is the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 29/11/2017 3:22 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2017 7:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 2:29 pm, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​ >> ​ And how is the Eternal Inflation Multiverse fundamentally

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/28/2017 7:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/11/2017 2:29 pm, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​ >> ​ And how is the Eternal Inflation Multiverse fundamentally different from the String Theory

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 3:46:03 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/28/2017 7:29 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: > > ​>> ​ >>> And how is the Eternal Inflation Multiverse fundamentally different from >>> the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 29/11/2017 2:29 pm, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker >wrote: ​ >> ​ And how is the Eternal Inflation Multiverse fundamentally different from the String Theory Multiverse? ​

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 3:14:28 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:34 PM, > wrote: > > ​>> ​ >>> All 3 assume the same physics. >> >> >> ​> ​ >> ​For string theory, the multiverse universes could have radically >> different fundamental

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/28/2017 7:29 PM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker >wrote: ​>> ​ And how is the Eternal Inflation Multiverse fundamentally different from the String Theory Multiverse? ​

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​>> ​ >> And how is the Eternal Inflation Multiverse fundamentally different from >> the String Theory Multiverse? >> ​ >> > > ​> ​ > I didn't say they were different from each other; I said they were > different from the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:34 PM, wrote: ​>> ​ >> All 3 assume the same physics. > > > ​> ​ > ​For string theory, the multiverse universes could have radically > different fundamental parameters; e.g., Coulomb's law with force a function > of 1/ r^3, and/or no gravity,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/28/2017 9:30 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Brent Meeker >wrote: ​>> ​ I think think the string theory Multiverse is related to the inflation theory Multiverse and both are related to the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/28/2017 7:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Nov 2017, at 23:02, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/27/2017 10:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The formal modal formula is B(Bp -> p) -> Bp. It looks also like wishful thinking. If you succeed in convincing a Löbian entity (whose beliefs are

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 9:12:17 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:59 PM, > wrote: > > ​ > ​>> ​ > The electron NEVER produces a smudge on that > photographic > ​ plate regardless ​of if it went through one slit or 2 slits or no slit > at

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 5:30:07 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: > > ​>> ​ >>> I think think the string theory Multiverse is related to the inflation >>> theory Multiverse and both are related to the Everett

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:59 PM, wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> The electron NEVER produces a smudge on that >> photographic >> ​ plate regardless ​of if it went through one slit or 2 slits or no slit >> at all. >> > > ​> ​ > Three strikes as follows: If it produced a mathematical

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​>> ​ >> I think think the string theory Multiverse is related to the inflation >> theory Multiverse and both are related to the Everett >> ​/​ >> ​D​ >> eutsch Multiverse. When 3 different theories independently point

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:46 PM, wrote: *​> ​If Weinberg thinks the MWI is "repellent", do you really think he > finds it plausible?* Yes ​ ​ absolutely!! Weinberg is on record for saying the universe is "pointless" and he probably thinks being pointless is pretty

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 28 Nov 2017, at 11:56, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 12:19:53 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Nov 2017, at 21:56, Lawrence Crowell wrote: and in modal logic it is □p → p. No, that is the reflexion formula, typically not provable in general (for exemple

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 27 Nov 2017, at 23:02, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/27/2017 10:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The formal modal formula is B(Bp -> p) -> Bp. It looks also like wishful thinking. If you succeed in convincing a Löbian entity (whose beliefs are close for the Löb rule, or having Löb's theorem

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 27 Nov 2017, at 21:53, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:56:39 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 11/26/2017 9:39 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 27 November 2017 at 16:19, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 27/11/2017 4:06 pm, Stathis

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 27 Nov 2017, at 20:46, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:13:32 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 4:48:12 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Nov 2017, at 21:58, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 24, 2017

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 27 Nov 2017, at 18:10, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 8:29:22 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Nov 2017, at 15:59, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 5:53:14 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: On 24/11/2017 10:15 am, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 12:19:53 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 26 Nov 2017, at 21:56, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > and in modal logic it is □p → p. > > > No, that is the reflexion formula, typically not provable in general (for > exemple Bf -> f, with f representing the constant

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 27 Nov 2017, at 01:55, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 6:36 PM, wrote: ​> ​Feynman, who wasn't an MWI enthusiast​ [...] ​"​Political scientist" L David Raub reports a poll of 72 of the "leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" about the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 27 Nov 2017, at 00:07, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 2:29:22 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Nov 2017, at 15:59, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 5:53:14 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: On 24/11/2017 10:15 am, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 2:59:33 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 8:57:41 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > wrote: > > > > ​>>​ > As for collapse, it's easily seen in the double slit experiment. The > electron, say, moves >

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

mana On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 8:57:41 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > wrote: > > > > ​>>​ > As for collapse, it's easily seen in the double slit experiment. The > electron, say, moves > ​ ​ > through space as a wave -- which explains the interference effects due to

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 12:22:04 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 03:57:37PM -0500, John Clark wrote: > > wrote: > > > > > > > > ​> ​ > > > Your source is fact-challenged. Weinberg thinks MULTIVERSE may have > merit, > > > but NOT

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/27/2017 6:14 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 05:09:13PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/27/2017 4:17 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 03:57:37PM -0500, John Clark wrote: wrote: ​> ​ Your source is fact-challenged.

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/27/2017 6:09 PM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Russell Standish >wrote: ​> ​ Alan deliberately uses the term "Multiverse" to refer to the string ​ landscape. And I think think the string

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 05:09:13PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 11/27/2017 4:17 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 03:57:37PM -0500, John Clark wrote: > > > wrote: > > > > > > > ​> ​ > > > > Your source is fact-challenged. Weinberg thinks

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Russell Standish wrote: ​> ​ > Alan deliberately uses the term "Multiverse" to refer to the string > ​ > landscape. And I think think the string theory Multiverse is related to the inflation theory Multiverse and both are related to the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/27/2017 4:17 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 03:57:37PM -0500, John Clark wrote: wrote: ​> ​ Your source is fact-challenged. Weinberg thinks MULTIVERSE may have merit, but NOT the MWI, ​Then give me some facts! Where does Weinberg say

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 28/11/2017 11:17 am, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 03:57:37PM -0500, John Clark wrote: wrote: ​> ​ Your source is fact-challenged. Weinberg thinks MULTIVERSE may have merit, but NOT the MWI, ​Then give me some facts! Where does Weinberg say that?

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 03:57:37PM -0500, John Clark wrote: > wrote: > > > > > ​> ​ > > Your source is fact-challenged. Weinberg thinks MULTIVERSE may have merit, > > but NOT the MWI, > > > ​Then give me some facts! Where does Weinberg say that? And how can you > have a

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/27/2017 1:05 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:08:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 11/26/2017 10:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 27 November 2017 at 16:54, wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/27/2017 10:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The formal modal formula is B(Bp -> p) -> Bp. It looks also like wishful thinking. If you succeed in convincing a Löbian entity (whose beliefs are close for the Löb rule, or having Löb's theorem for its bewesibar predicate) that if she ever

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 at 7:41 am, wrote: > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 3:28:20 PM UTC, stathisp wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 6:23 pm, wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:12:09 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/27/2017 9:10 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 8:29:22 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Nov 2017, at 15:59, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 5:53:14 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: On 24/11/2017 10:15 am, Lawrence Crowell

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 4:05 PM, wrote: ​>> ​ >> If there is a repetition, is it really a different universe? >> >> > ​> ​ > Yes, because it would be located in a different position in the multiverse. > ​How do you even know they are is a different position, what does

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/27/2017 7:28 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 6:23 pm, > wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:12:09 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: On 27 November 2017 at 17:54, wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/27/2017 6:45 AM, Jason Resch wrote: I think your distaste with MWI comes from an incorrect view of how splitting occurs. Shooting a photon of at a slit doesn't instantly create millions or infinite numbers of universes. *But that's NOT what the enthusiasts

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:08:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/26/2017 10:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On 27 November 2017 at 16:54, wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:48:58 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:56:39 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/26/2017 9:39 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On 27 November 2017 at 16:19, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On 27/11/2017 4:06 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On 26 November 2017 at

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 3:28:20 PM UTC, stathisp wrote: > > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 6:23 pm, wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:12:09 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 27 November 2017 at 17:54, wrote: >>>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:13:32 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 4:48:12 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 24 Nov 2017, at 21:58, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, November 24, 2017 at 12:15:46 PM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/26/2017 11:48 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:18 AM, > wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:54:13 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 27,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/26/2017 10:45 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 27 November 2017 at 17:36, > wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:30:34 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/26/2017 10:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 27 November 2017 at 16:54, > wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:48:58 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/26/2017 9:48 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:44:25 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: On 27 November 2017 at 16:25, wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:07:03 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: On 26 November

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/26/2017 9:39 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 27 November 2017 at 16:19, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 27/11/2017 4:06 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 26 November 2017 at 13:33,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 26 Nov 2017, at 21:56, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 8:22:37 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Nov 2017, at 00:15, Lawrence Crowell wrote: I am new to this list and have not followed all the arguments here. In weighing in here I might be making an error of

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 25 Nov 2017, at 19:16, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 3:39:00 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 4:08 PM, wrote: ​>​>>​ ​Do you really think that when you pull a slot machine and get some outcome, the 10 million

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 8:29:22 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 24 Nov 2017, at 15:59, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 5:53:14 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >> >> On 24/11/2017 10:15 am, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 9:37:48

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 25 Nov 2017, at 18:55, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 3:06:50 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 9:21:14 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 11:15:40 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 24 Nov 2017, at 21:58, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 24, 2017 at 12:15:46 PM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Nov 2017, at 22:51, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 5:24:48 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Nov 2017, at 09:55,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 24 Nov 2017, at 20:32, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I was just explaining that a measurement is any memorable interaction, which is simplest to illustrate with a tensor product of Alice (|A>)and a simple

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 6:23 pm, wrote: > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:12:09 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: > >> >> >> On 27 November 2017 at 17:54, wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:45:43 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017, wrote: > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 8:03:47 AM UTC, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:54 AM, wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:45:43 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 8:03:47 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:54 AM, > wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:45:43 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 27 November 2017 at 17:36, wrote: >>>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 11:04:47 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: > > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 6:29 pm, wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:23:48 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:12:09 AM UTC, stathisp

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 6:29 pm, wrote: > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:23:48 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:12:09 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 27 November 2017 at 17:54, wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:18 AM, wrote: > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:54:13 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:45:43 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 27 November 2017 at 17:36, wrote:

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >