Lee Corbin writes:
Richard writes
> >How, essentially, does this differ from the casino game of
> >roulette?
> And there are people who are good at it. Everyone calls them "lucky"
which
> really doesn't explain much. Some of us routinely choose the wrong
queue,
> others get the correct
At 08:51 PM 5/25/2005, Lee Corbin wrote:
At 09:33 PM 5/25/2005, you wrote:
Richard writes
> >How, essentially, does this differ from the casino game of
> >roulette?
LC: I don't believe that there are lucky people, except as a perfectly
ordinary and expected random fluctuation.
RM: Obviously
Richard writes
> >How, essentially, does this differ from the casino game of
> >roulette?
> And there are people who are good at it. Everyone calls them "lucky" which
> really doesn't explain much. Some of us routinely choose the wrong queue,
> others get the correct one (queuing theory and
mptous evaluation of a website that reports on the work of some very good physicist, e.g. Zeh, Joos, Kim, and Tegmark. Do you have any substantive comment? Did you read any of the papers?
Brent Meeker
-Original Message-From: aet.radal ssg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, May 24
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 7:49
PMTo: everything-list@eskimo.comSubject: RE: Sociological
approach
"See
http://decoherence.de "? It was good for a
laugh, not much else.- Original Message - From: "Brent
Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: &
On Tue, 24 May 2005, aet.radal ssg wrote:
"See http://decoherence.de "? It was good for a laugh, not much else.
Funnily enough, that was my thought about your friend Plaga, whose paper
is rubbish because he doesn't know the first thing about decoherence,
and fails to notice that his propos
"See http://decoherence.de "? It was good for a laugh, not much else.- Original Message - From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "Everything-List" Subject: RE: Sociological approach Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 22:02:48 - > > > > > -
>-Original Message-
>From: Patrick Leahy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 9:46 AM
>To: Brent Meeker
>Cc: Everything-List
>Subject: RE: Sociological approach
>
>
>
>On Mon, 23 May 2005, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>> -Ori
At 07:15 AM 5/24/2005, you wrote:
Richard M writes
> I remember Plaga's original post on the Los Alamos
> archives way back when the server there was a 386.
> Most of the methods I've seen--Plaga's, Fred Alan
> Wolf's, and others involve tweaking the mortar, so
> to speak---prying apart the wal
Richard M writes
> I remember Plaga's original post on the Los Alamos
> archives way back when the server there was a 386.
> Most of the methods I've seen--Plaga's, Fred Alan
> Wolf's, and others involve tweaking the mortar, so
> to speak---prying apart the wallboard to obtain
> evidence of the ne
Le 24-mai-05, à 00:02, Brent Meeker a écrit :
-Original Message-
From: rmiller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 5:40 PM
To: Patrick Leahy
Cc: aet.radal ssg; EverythingList; Giu1i0 Pri5c0
Subject: Re: Sociological approach
...
More to the point, if you happen to
Le 24-mai-05, à 02:29, aet.radal ssg a écrit :
I think I can answer to the whole message by saying "no way" isn't
always "the way". The EPR paradox was supposed to prove quantum theory
was wrong because it supposedly violated relativity. Alain Aspect
proved that EPR actually worked as adverti
On Mon, 23 May 2005, Brent Meeker wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Patrick Leahy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
NB: I'm in some terminological difficulty because I personally *define*
different branches of the wave function by the property of being fully
decoherent. Hence reference to "mi
ide.- Original
> Message - From: "Patrick Leahy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To:
> EverythingList Subject: Re: Sociological
> approach Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 19:50:15 +0100 (BST) >
> > > QM is a well-defined theory. Like any theory it could be
> proved &
>-Original Message-
>From: rmiller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 5:40 PM
>To: Patrick Leahy
>Cc: aet.radal ssg; EverythingList; Giu1i0 Pri5c0
>Subject: Re: Sociological approach
...
>More to the point, if you happen to know why the mere act
>-Original Message-
>From: Patrick Leahy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 6:50 PM
>To: EverythingList
>Subject: Re: Sociological approach
>
>
>
>QM is a well-defined theory. Like any theory it could be proved wrong by
>future experiments
At 07:29 PM 5/23/2005, you wrote:
I think I can answer to the
whole message by saying "no way" isn't always "the
way". The EPR paradox was supposed to prove quantum theory was wrong
because it supposedly violated relativity. Alain Aspect proved that EPR
actually worked as advertised, however it
://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9510007 . Time will tell, but I think history is on my side.- Original Message - From: "Patrick Leahy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: EverythingList Subject: Re: Sociological approach Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 19:50:15 +0100 (BST) > > > QM is a well-
On Mon, 23 May 2005, scerir wrote:
Do you agree we can have branches (or histories) in space
(in a space) but also branches (or histories) in time?
I guess there is an implicit "not only" in this question :)
You have an atom, excited (ie by a laser).
This atom can radiate a photon in two d
From: "Patrick Leahy"
> NB: I'm in some terminological difficulty because I personally *define*
> different branches of the wave function by the property of being fully
> decoherent. Hence reference to "micro-branches" or "micro-histories" for
> cases where you *can* get interference.
Do you a
QM is a well-defined theory. Like any theory it could be proved wrong by
future experiments. My point is that R. Miller's suggestions would
definitely constitute a replacement of QM by something different. So would
aet.radal's (?) suggestion of information tunnelling between macroscopic
branc
Patrick--
At 05:04 AM 5/23/2005, you wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2005, rmiller wrote:
I'm approaching this as a sociologist with some physics background so I'm
focusing on what the behavior system perceives ("measures"). If all
possible worlds exist in a superpositional state, then the behavior
This may be clarified by a paper that Richard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and
I wrote together.
http://www.futuretag.net/hitbang/2005/03/shadows-and-concept-of-self.php
We would love hearing what you guys think.
On 5/23/05, rmiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I'm approaching this as a sociologist w
Forgiveness for any typos. I'm in a hurry here. I was going to reply to Miller's message directly, but I see where I can kill two birds with one stone:- Original Message - From: "Patrick Leahy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: rmiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re:
On Sun, 22 May 2005, rmiller wrote:
I'm approaching this as a sociologist with some physics background so I'm
focusing on what the behavior system perceives ("measures"). If all possible
worlds exist in a superpositional state, then the behavior system should
likewise exist in a superposit
RMiller writes
> I'm approaching this as a sociologist with some physics background so I'm
> focusing on what the behavior system perceives ("measures"). If all
> possible worlds exist in a superpositional state, then the behavior system
> should likewise exist in a superpositional state. If t
I'm approaching this as a sociologist with some physics background so I'm
focusing on what the behavior system perceives ("measures"). If all
possible worlds exist in a superpositional state, then the behavior system
should likewise exist in a superpositional state. If there are say, 10
pos
27 matches
Mail list logo
