Re: Entanglement

On 5/1/2018 9:13 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: Il 1 maggio 2018 alle 17.36 Bruno Marchal ha scritto: On 29 Apr 2018, at 08:21, 'scerir' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com > wrote: IMO Schroedinger invented this m

Fwd: Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

An interesting proof by Hamkins and a lot of discussion of its significance on John Baez's blog.  It agrees with my intuition that the mathematical idea of "finite" is not so obvious. Brent Forwarded Message On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:13 PM, James wrote: On Tue, May 1, 2018

Re: Entanglement

On 5/1/2018 4:43 PM, smitra wrote: On 01-05-2018 20:47, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/1/2018 9:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Apr 2018, at 19:59, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/29/2018 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But that's my question: Why isn't it the same? And even if it's n

Re: The Arrow of Time

On 5/2/2018 4:48 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 3:33:23 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: Implied by standard QM insofar as the theory is inherently irreversible, that is, irreversible in principle at the quantum level since the wf cannot be recov

Re: The Arrow of Time

On 5/2/2018 2:44 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 6:01:28 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/2/2018 4:48 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 3:33:23 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: Implied by standard QM insofar as th

Re: The Arrow of Time

On 5/2/2018 3:56 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 10:01:38 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/2/2018 2:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 6:01:28 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/2/2018 4:48 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: Entanglement

On 5/2/2018 6:02 PM, smitra wrote: On 02-05-2018 03:21, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/1/2018 4:43 PM, smitra wrote: On 01-05-2018 20:47, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/1/2018 9:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Apr 2018, at 19:59, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/29/2018 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote

Re: Entanglement

On 5/3/2018 4:03 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: The problem, of course, is that this unitary operator is formed in the multiverse, so to form its inverse we have to have access to the other worlds of the multiverse. And this is impossible because of the linearity of the SE. So although the mathemat

Re: Entanglement

On 5/3/2018 4:51 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: From: *Brent Meeker* On 5/3/2018 4:03 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: The problem, of course, is that this unitary operator is formed in the multiverse, so to form its inverse we have to have access to the other worlds of the multiverse. And this is

Re: Entanglement

On 5/3/2018 9:07 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 11:52:00 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: From: *Brent Meeker* > On 5/3/2018 4:03 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: The problem, of course, is that this unitary operator is formed in the multiverse, so to form

Re: Entanglement

On 5/4/2018 12:20 AM, smitra wrote: On 03-05-2018 03:22, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/2/2018 6:02 PM, smitra wrote: On 02-05-2018 03:21, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/1/2018 4:43 PM, smitra wrote: On 01-05-2018 20:47, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/1/2018 9:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Apr 2018

Re: Entanglement

On 5/4/2018 12:07 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately, it is not the case that you can implement absolutely any unitary transformation in this way. For instance, you cannot implement the unitary transformation that would reverse a totally decohered event. *If the

Re: Entanglement

On 5/4/2018 5:33 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 9:44:49 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/4/2018 12:07 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately, it is not the case that you can implement absolutely any unitary transformation in this way. For

Re: Entanglement

On 5/4/2018 8:01 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 1:47:59 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/4/2018 5:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 9:44:49 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/4/2018 12:07 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

On 5/6/2018 6:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 2 May 2018, at 02:28, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 3:37:15 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: An interesting proof by Hamkins and a lot of discussion of its significance on John Baez's

Re: Leonard Susskind | Lecture 2: Black Holes and the Holographic Principle

On 5/6/2018 6:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: From: *spinozalens via Free Thinkers Physics Discussion Group* Δ No, Susskind makes clear that the Hawking radiation is blue shifted near the Horizon, and every other source I have  on this agrees. You can't get a detectable photon for the outside o

Re: Entanglement of macro objects

On 5/8/2018 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 4 May 2018, at 12:57, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: ... It may not fundamentally exist, and if it does there are then deep questions on how quantum mechanics builds up this phenomena that appears classical.

Re: Looking for an exposition of a variant of the MUH

On 5/11/2018 9:01 PM, Dustin Wehr wrote: I'm a big fan of Tegmark's 2007 article/The Mathematical Universe, /but I believe he got a couple details wrong, and those details are interfering with my attempts to interest friends. So, I'm looking for an exposition of the Mathematical Universe Hypo

Re: Looking for an exposition of a variant of the MUH

On 5/12/2018 12:20 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I am far from being an expert in the MUH, but if it claims that every mathematical function is reified in physical reality, it is easily falsifiable. Consider the EM spectrum. There's obviously a cut-off at some high frequency. We can f

Re: Entanglement

On 5/18/2018 9:58 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 4:43:15 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/4/2018 8:01 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 1:47:59 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/4/2018 5:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrot

Re: Entanglement

On 5/18/2018 10:14 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: *So why don't you draw the obvious inference? If those other worlds don't exist -- which if I can read English has been your passionate position all along -- then quantum measurements in this world, the only world, are statistical and hen

Re: Entanglement

On 5/18/2018 10:53 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 5:29:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/18/2018 10:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: *So why don't you draw the obvious inference? If those other worlds don't exist -- which if I can read English has

Re: Entanglement

On 5/19/2018 8:19 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:59:03 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/18/2018 10:53 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 5:29:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/18/2018 10:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: Entanglement

On 5/20/2018 3:47 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 6:52:41 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/19/2018 8:19 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:59:03 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/18/2018 10:53 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: Entanglement

On 5/20/2018 1:44 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 7:29:42 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/20/2018 3:47 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 6:52:41 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/19/2018 8:19 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: Entanglement

On 5/20/2018 2:54 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:13:42 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/20/2018 1:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 7:29:42 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/20/2018 3:47 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: Entanglement

On 5/20/2018 3:35 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: Exactly.  The quantum Bayesian take this view How does "Baysian" fit into this picture? Can't one interpret the SWE as a representation of what we know about a system, without being a Baysian? AG and consider Schroedinger&

Re: Entanglement

On 5/20/2018 4:56 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 10:35:26 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/20/2018 2:54 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:13:42 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/20/2018 1:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: Entanglement

On 5/20/2018 5:00 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 10:53:38 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/20/2018 3:35 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: Exactly.  The quantum Bayesian take this view How does "Baysian" fit into this picture? Can't on

Re: Entanglement

On 5/20/2018 6:25 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 12:22:24 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/20/2018 4:56 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 10:35:26 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/20/2018 2:54 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: Entanglement

On 5/20/2018 6:35 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: It's not a matter of being incorrect, just incomplete.  And there may be several attributes of a system such that different observers are ignorant of the values of different attributes and so they all write down different ini

Re: Entanglement

On 5/21/2018 1:16 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: It's not a matter of being incorrect, just incomplete.  And there may be several attributes of a system such that different observers are ignorant of the values of different attributes and so they all write down different init

Re: Entanglement

On 5/21/2018 11:21 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 5:28:38 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/20/2018 6:25 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 12:22:24 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/20/2018 4:56 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: Entanglement

On 5/22/2018 6:39 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: I'm OK with getting rid of the projection operator. Are you now claiming information is lost or inaccessible in these orthogonal subspaces and therefore quantum measurements cannot be reversed? They are inaccessible to the

Re: Entanglement

On 5/22/2018 3:46 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:41:11 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:06:39 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/22/2018 6:39 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: I'm OK with getting rid of th

Re: Entanglement

On 5/22/2018 4:56 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: I did, but you're avoiding the key point; if the theory is on the right track, and I think it is, quantum measurements are irreversible FAPP. The superposition is converted into mixed states, no interference, and no need for t

Re: Entanglement

On 5/22/2018 5:59 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 12:44:06 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/22/2018 3:46 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:41:11 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10

Re: Entanglement

On 5/22/2018 6:55 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 1:45:39 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/22/2018 5:59 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 12:44:06 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/22/2018 3:46 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote

Re: Entanglement

On 5/22/2018 8:29 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 2:24:07 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: From: > On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 1:45:39 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/22/2018 5:59 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 12:

Re: Entanglement

On 5/22/2018 9:41 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 4:05:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/22/2018 8:29 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 2:24:07 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: From: On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 1:4

Re: Entanglement

On 5/22/2018 11:53 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 4:44:30 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/22/2018 9:41 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 4:05:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/22/2018 8:29 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote

Re: Entanglement

On 5/23/2018 3:53 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 5:54:29 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/22/2018 11:53 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 4:44:30 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/22/2018 9:41 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote

Re: Entanglement

On 5/23/2018 9:17 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: In the MWI interpretation there is no reason to preference one over the other with the honorific of "exists".  They are just projective subspaces that are essentially (FAPP) orthogonal to one another. I can buy that, althoug

Re: Entanglement

On 5/23/2018 9:43 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 4:28:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/23/2018 9:17 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: In the MWI interpretation there is no reason to preference one over the other with the honorific of "exists"

Re: Entanglement

On 5/23/2018 10:37 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 4:53:29 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/23/2018 9:43 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 4:28:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/23/2018 9:17 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: Entanglement

On 5/23/2018 11:48 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 6:02:30 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/23/2018 10:37 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 4:53:29 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/23/2018 9:43 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: Entanglement

On 5/24/2018 1:51 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 7:33:06 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/23/2018 11:48 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 6:02:30 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/23/2018 10:37 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: Entanglement

On 5/24/2018 2:48 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: Would it be consistent with decoherence theory to say that each component of a superposition gets entangled with the environment defined by the lab / instrument in which an experiment is performed -- what I have been calling "this world"

Re: Entanglement

On 5/25/2018 10:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 May 2018, at 05:46, Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 5/22/2018 6:55 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 1:45:39 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/22/2018 5:59 PM, agrays...@

Re: Entanglement

On 5/25/2018 9:50 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: *Right. I was just making the observation that when we don't see advanced EM waves (coming from the future?), it's generally not seen as a big deal and they're ignored. But when decoherence or the MWI implies the creation of full-blown world

Re: Entanglement

On 5/26/2018 1:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: He hates Everett, but a bit like Brent and Bruce, he can’t not not defend it against his will? Did you have some negations left over from your lectures, Bruno? :-) Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: Entanglement

On 5/26/2018 1:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If a particle evolution if given by F(x, t), and if it is put in the superposition x1 + x2, the particles will evolve into the superposition F(x1, t) + F(x2, t). Making the worlds “semi-classical” by quasi-orthogonality, and so being inaccessible. To

Re: Entanglement

On 5/26/2018 1:37 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 5:08:51 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5/25/2018 9:50 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: *Right. I was just making the observation that when we don't see advanced EM waves (coming from the future?), it's ge

Re: Entanglement

On 5/26/2018 9:29 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: There's a distinction between subspaces that are disjoint and inaccessible to each other, and their non existence. Apparently you want to make the case that their mutual inaccessibility is equivalent to their non existence. A

Re: Entanglement

On 5/26/2018 11:21 PM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: Il 27 maggio 2018 alle 6.05 Brent Meeker ha scritto: On 5/26/2018 1:37 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com <mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com> wrote: On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 5:08:51 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 5

Re: Strong AI implies MWI

On 5/27/2018 1:22 AM, smitra wrote: This is a physical version of what Bruno has been talking about on this list. With "strong AI" I mean that any simulation of a person generates the mind of that person, and the subjective state of that person is independent of how that simulation is perfo

Re: Primary matter

On 5/28/2018 6:08 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2018-05-28 14:54 GMT+02:00 >: On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 11:49:49 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 May 2018, at 22:56, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 9:56:39 AM

Re: Primary matter

On 5/29/2018 8:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 May 2018, at 21:06, Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 5/28/2018 6:08 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2018-05-28 14:54 GMT+02:00 <mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>>: On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 11:4

Re: Primary matter

On 5/30/2018 3:18 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2018-05-30 11:27 GMT+02:00 Lawrence Crowell >: On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 1:25:19 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: You miss my point that no one, no physicists, no philosopher, starts out by

Re: Primary matter

On 5/30/2018 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It is your invention as a straw man to be defeated by computationalism. ?   (I have no clue why you say this) but most also suppose that it is not "primary”. Philosophers were more clear on this before +523. But since then, most take fo

Re: Primary matter

On 5/30/2018 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le mer. 30 mai 2018 à 20:29, Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> a écrit : On 5/30/2018 3:18 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2018-05-30 11:27 GMT+02:00 Lawrence Crowell mailto:goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com>&g

Re: Primary matter

On 5/31/2018 2:06 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: You're a bit naughty Brent. You sometimes use this maneuver of nonchalantly listing something that is being discussed -- but that you don't like -- along with something else that is obviously outdated or silly. It's not that I "don't like" primary

Re: Primary matter

On 5/31/2018 11:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 May 2018, at 20:29, Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 5/30/2018 3:18 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2018-05-30 11:27 GMT+02:00 Lawrence Crowell <mailto:goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com>>: On Tue

Re: Primary matter

On 6/1/2018 12:15 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On 31 May 2018 at 19:57, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/31/2018 2:06 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: You're a bit naughty Brent. You sometimes use this maneuver of nonchalantly listing something that is being discussed -- but that you don't lik

Re: Primary matter

On 6/1/2018 7:49 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Physical theories of the brain, based on extensive empirical research, have linked the mind and consciousness to physical brain activity in irrefutable ways. The above statement is pseudoscience. Given that there is no scientific instrument that can d

Re: Primary matter

On 6/3/2018 3:40 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On 1 June 2018 at 19:41, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/1/2018 12:15 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On 31 May 2018 at 19:57, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/31/2018 2:06 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: You're a bit naughty Brent. You sometimes use this maneuv

Re: Primary matter

On 6/3/2018 4:10 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On 1 June 2018 at 22:37, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/1/2018 7:49 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Physical theories of the brain, based on extensive empirical research, have linked the mind and consciousness to physical brain activity in irrefutable ways

Re: Primary matter

On 6/4/2018 3:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Most scientists and scientifically-literate people I know assume that consciousness emerges from brain activity without ever really thinking about the ramifications of this hypothesis. I have had this conversation several times, and I can usually tell

Re: Primary matter

On 6/4/2018 6:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: There is not one argument here. You seem to confuse arithmetical realism, used in all branches of science, and Platonism (which is part of the consequence). To define mathematically what a computation is, we need arithmetical realism. Science doe

Re: Primary matter

On 6/4/2018 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: I am very grateful for mother medicine, but we should not pretend that its operative assumptions solve the fundamental questions. What fundamental question do you refer to? How to detect consciousness? How to produce consciousness? How to prove (in t

Re: Primary matter

On 6/4/2018 4:07 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 01:12:57PM -0400, John Clark wrote: ​>* ​* *Free-will is often defined by an ability to do something randomly, * Free-will is NOT *often* described that way, I have but I've never heard anyone else do so; I'm _sure_ you'v

Re: Primary matter

On 6/4/2018 4:39 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 02:48:01PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: It's a necessary feature of intelligence.  Intelligence requires "what-if" modeling of situations in order to foresee consequences. Even a the lower animal level this i

Re: Entanglement

On 6/5/2018 2:05 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 7:03:28 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: From: On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 1:18:29 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: From: Remember that the analysis I have given above is schema

Re: Entanglement

On 6/5/2018 2:48 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: *One objective was to convince myself whether the wf you have written for decoherence makes any sense. Originally I thought one needed mutual interference of all components for it to be viable. I doubted whether each component interferes with

Re: Primary matter

On 6/5/2018 7:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On 4 June 2018 at 23:48, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/4/2018 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: I am very grateful for mother medicine, but we should not pretend that its operative assumptions solve the fundamental questions. What fundamental question do

Re: Primary matter

On 6/5/2018 7:58 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: If I understand correctly, you define free-will as the ability to act independently from other people, biological instincts and so on. My problem is that free-will must be free from something. I can accept it as a relative concept -- my free-will in re

Re: Primary matter

On 6/5/2018 8:12 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On 4 June 2018 at 20:30, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/4/2018 3:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Most scientists and scientifically-literate people I know assume that consciousness emerges from brain activity without ever really thinking about the

Re: Entanglement

On 6/5/2018 5:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: From: mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 7:02:11 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 6/5/2018 2:48 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: *One objective was to convince myself whether the wf you have written for decoherence makes

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

On 6/6/2018 3:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But in Helsinki, as a computationalist, you know in advance that whatever you will live is a definite unique experience, of W or of M. You lost unicity in the 3p view, indeed, but as human survivor, you keep it, and feel to be only one of the two c

Re: Primary matter

On 6/6/2018 5:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Yes, but why are the "lights on" inside me? Why are we not mechanisms, that do exactly what you describe, but without a first-person experience of it? Ah, there's your problem. Science doesn't answer "why" questions. That's what I mean by people hav

Re: Primary matter

On 6/6/2018 8:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: But in the early days of life on this planet random mutation and natural selection stumbled upon a key molecule in the photosynthesis process, chlorophyll, that just happens to be green and it works OK, not perfectly but OK. In Evolution you don't have

Re: Primary matter

On 6/6/2018 10:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It does. When the machine opts for <>p in the doubt between p and <>p, if it let it go, in some sense, it transforms itself into a more speedy and more efficacious machine, with respect to its most probable history. So, consciousness brings a self-s

Re: Is the Continuum Hypothesis a) really true or really false, or b) something else ?

Just wondering, John.  Did you learn capitalization at the Wharton School of Business? Brent On 6/6/2018 3:39 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 6:04 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: ​>​ /in Helsinki, as a computationalist, you know in advance that

Re: Primary matter

must be more to it.  Is the chlorophyll pathway more efficient? Brent On 6/6/2018 4:00 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 03:16:31PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/6/2018 8:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: But in the early days of life on this planet random mutation and natural sel

Re: Primary matter

On 6/7/2018 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ee above, i.e. because it is necessary. Science may well determine when and where and what relations there are. But not why. That's the "engineering" solution to the hard problem of consciousness for which I am often criticized. Because you limit

Re: Primary matter

On 6/7/2018 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 7 Jun 2018, at 02:26, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/6/2018 10:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It does. When the machine opts for <>p in the doubt between p and <>p, if it let it go, in some sense, it transforms itself into a more spe

Re: Green stars (was Primary matter)

On 6/7/2018 3:24 PM, Russell Standish wrote: The appearance of colour is as much psychological as anything. We would have evolved to perceive ambient light as white - doesn't matter whether there are clear skies, or it is cloudy, the brain will adjust, given appropriate cues. Yeah, my wife i

Re: Primary matter

On 6/8/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You confuse religion with argument per authority, and tat will continue as long as theology does not come back to science, which put reason before texts, and is modest in never claiming truth, but only means of testing ideas. No, you are confusing

Re: Entanglement

On 6/11/2018 3:22 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: I am not sure this make sense (with the SWE). The cat is always isolated, in some sense. * IMO totally wrong. In fact now you're contradicting what you wrote in a recent post. The cat is NEVER ISOLATED, VIRTUALLY

Re: Entanglement

On 6/11/2018 6:26 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:57:59 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 6/11/2018 3:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: I am not sure this make sense (with the SWE). The cat is always isolated, in some sense.

Re: Entanglement

On 6/11/2018 7:12 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 1:53:42 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 6/11/2018 6:26 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:57:59 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 6/11/2018 3:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On 6/12/2018 1:01 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: *The bottom line, or if you will, the 800 pound elephant in the room, is that the macro entities which are included in the seminal superposition of states for decoherence, are in thermal equilibrium with their environments, constantly emitti

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On 6/12/2018 10:51 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 5:28:05 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 6/12/2018 1:01 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: *The bottom line, or if you will, the 800 pound elephant in the room, is that the macro entities which are included

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On 6/12/2018 3:02 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 8:20:00 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 6:13:04 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 6/12/2018 10:51 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 5:

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On 6/12/2018 3:18 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 10:14:56 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 6/12/2018 3:02 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 8:20:00 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 6

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On 6/12/2018 3:31 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: *As I see it, the total system represented by the wf  ( (Alive, Undecayed) + (Dead, Decayed) ), leaving out Dirac symbols, must be isolated if it's regarded as a superposition. If so, this implies the cat is also isolated. AG * Being "rega

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On 6/12/2018 4:21 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:03:28 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: From: > *Doesn't the superposition of states used in the cat problem. or indeed any quantum superposition, requires the system being measured to be iso

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On 6/12/2018 4:45 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:04:21 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 6/12/2018 3:18 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 10:14:56 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 6/12/2018 3:02 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On 6/12/2018 6:57 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 7:05:34 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: From: > * So if one chooses a basis where the cat is simultaneously alive and dead, is this a problem for QM? AG * No problem for QM -- one does it all the tim

Re: Schrodinger's Cat vs Decoherence Theory

On 6/12/2018 7:24 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 12:50:05 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 6/12/2018 4:45 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:04:21 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 6/12/2018 3:18 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrot

<    3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   >