Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I don't understand his argument, no doubt my failing. ISTM that whether we affirm one world or many worlds, all we can ever measure is what observe in this world, and it is from this world that we generate an ensemble after many trials from which to observe and affirm Born's rule. What am I missing, if anything? TIA, AG
Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I don't understand his argument, no doubt my failing.
ISTM that whether we affirm one world or many worlds, all we can ever measure is what observe in this world, and it is from this world that we generate an ensemble after many trials from which to observe and affirm Born's rule. What am I missing, if anything? TIA, AG
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1b4c467f-17bd-4438-aa05-1e9db3cb7562%40googlegroups.com.
On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I don't understand his argument, no doubt my failing.
I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule has to stuck in somehow. It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be derived from the linear evolution. Somehow a probability has to be introduced. Once there is a probability measure, then it can be argued via Gleason's theorem that the only consistent measure is the Born rule.
Brent
ISTM that whether we affirm one world or many worlds, all we can ever measure is what observe in this world, and it is from this world that we generate an ensemble after many trials from which to observe and affirm Born's rule. What am I missing, if anything? TIA, AG--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I don't understand his argument, no doubt my failing.
I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule has to stuck in somehow. It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be derived from the linear evolution. Somehow a probability has to be introduced. Once there is a probability measure, then it can be argued via Gleason's theorem that the only consistent measure is the Born rule.
BrentI think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one CANNOT derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether one affirms MWI or not, the only thing one has to work with is an ensemble generated by measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive Born's rule using a one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so with many-worlds, since in operational terms -- what is observed -- the two interpretations are indistinguishable. AG
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I don't understand his argument, no doubt my failing.
I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule has to stuck in somehow. It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be derived from the linear evolution. Somehow a probability has to be introduced. Once there is a probability measure, then it can be argued via Gleason's theorem that the only consistent measure is the Born rule.
BrentI think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one CANNOT derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether one affirms MWI or not, the only thing one has to work with is an ensemble generated by measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive Born's rule using a one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so with many-worlds, since in operational terms -- what is observed -- the two interpretations are indistinguishable. AGThat's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can move on from there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of measurements are generated, and most will give different values for the probabilities. For the observers getting the alternative data, there is nothing to tell them that they are getting the wrong answer. MWI is incoherent.Bruce
On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:34:59 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I don't understand his argument, no doubt my failing.
I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule has to stuck in somehow. It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be derived from the linear evolution. Somehow a probability has to be introduced. Once there is a probability measure, then it can be argued via Gleason's theorem that the only consistent measure is the Born rule.
BrentI think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one CANNOT derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether one affirms MWI or not, the only thing one has to work with is an ensemble generated by measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive Born's rule using a one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so with many-worlds, since in operational terms -- what is observed -- the two interpretations are indistinguishable. AGThat's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can move on from there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of measurements are generated, and most will give different values for the probabilities. For the observers getting the alternative data, there is nothing to tell them that they are getting the wrong answer. MWI is incoherent.BruceBut won't the hypothetical observers in OTHER worlds get the same ensembles and thus the same distributions? AG
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I don't understand his argument, no doubt my failing.
I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule has to stuck in somehow. It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be derived from the linear evolution. Somehow a probability has to be introduced. Once there is a probability measure, then it can be argued via Gleason's theorem that the only consistent measure is the Born rule.
BrentI think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one CANNOT derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether one affirms MWI or not, the only thing one has to work with is an ensemble generated by measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive Born's rule using a one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so with many-worlds, since in operational terms -- what is observed -- the two interpretations are indistinguishable. AGThat's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can move on from there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of measurements are generated, and most will give different values for the probabilities. For the observers getting the alternative data, there is nothing to tell them that they are getting the wrong answer. MWI is incoherent.Bruce
All quantum interpretations have a level of incoherence.LC
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I don't understand his argument, no doubt my failing.
I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule has to stuck in somehow. It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be derived from the linear evolution. Somehow a probability has to be introduced. Once there is a probability measure, then it can be argued via Gleason's theorem that the only consistent measure is the Born rule.
Brent
I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one CANNOT derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether one affirms MWI or not, the only thing one has to work with is an ensemble generated by measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive Born's rule using a one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so with many-worlds, since in operational terms -- what is observed -- the two interpretations are indistinguishable. AG
That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can move on from there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of measurements are generated, and most will give different values for the probabilities. For the observers getting the alternative data, there is nothing to tell them that they are getting the wrong answer. MWI is incoherent.
BruceISTM that whether we affirm one world or many worlds, all we can ever measure is what observe in this world, and it is from this world that we generate an ensemble after many trials from which to observe and affirm Born's rule. What am I missing, if anything? TIA, AG
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRkZEYAO6X%3DjPir8B%3DHVB6ddjDudRhY1-fPKtu%3DAK%3DD7w%40mail.gmail.com.
On 2/14/2020 1:34 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can move on from there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of measurements are generated, and most will give different values for the probabilities. For the observers getting the alternative data, there is nothing to tell them that they are getting the wrong answer. MWI is incoherent.
Since it's an interpretation, not a theory, then there's nothing to tell us we're getting the wrong answer either. We only think "answers" are wrong if they aren't replicated.
I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't mean THIS world doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the process of measurement. AG
On 14 Feb 2020, at 09:56, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I don't understand his argument, no doubt my failing.
I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule has to stuck in somehow. It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be derived from the linear evolution. Somehow a probability has to be introduced. Once there is a probability measure, then it can be argued via Gleason's theorem that the only consistent measure is the Born rule.
BrentI think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one CANNOT derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether one affirms MWI or not, the only thing one has to work with is an ensemble generated by measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive Born's rule using a one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so with many-worlds, since in operational terms -- what is observed -- the two interpretations are indistinguishable. AG
ISTM that whether we affirm one world or many worlds, all we can ever measure is what observe in this world, and it is from this world that we generate an ensemble after many trials from which to observe and affirm Born's rule. What am I missing, if anything? TIA, AG--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1b4c467f-17bd-4438-aa05-1e9db3cb7562%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/122e8820-b97d-4f03-8250-7a0b421b9fa3%40googlegroups.com.
On 14 Feb 2020, at 22:31, Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 6:14 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 2/14/2020 1:34 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can move on from there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of measurements are generated, and most will give different values for the probabilities. For the observers getting the alternative data, there is nothing to tell them that they are getting the wrong answer. MWI is incoherent.
Since it's an interpretation, not a theory, then there's nothing to tell us we're getting the wrong answer either. We only think "answers" are wrong if they aren't replicated.
Probably true... But that is exactly what happens in MWI with one branch per outcome —
the data obtained are independent of the amplitudes/coefficients in the original state.
So only a miracle could ensure that repeats of an experiment gave the same results. Hence, by the "no miracles" argument, MWI is incoherent.
Bruce
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRMJH5hHk4-O3UDe0tE2MmHtZiEJf-PEXuLEwCirq8JwQ%40mail.gmail.com.
w-0 and w-1 of equal reality replace w. And there are now "You"-0 and "You"-1 and no more "You”.
@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e11207e7-9b90-45b1-8edd-63a2e2ee1009%40googlegroups.com.
"You" is in a world w (out of the infinity of worlds already existing), runs the quantum coin flipper - https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys4342 - and two worlds w-0 and w-1 of equal reality replace w. And there are now "You"-0 and "You"-1 and no more "You".@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4a5692b0-2cf8-48d2-bbd9-ba2f5e4c0d21%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bea81be6-c155-4d90-b4fc-01abe6395d55%40googlegroups.com.
On 14 Feb 2020, at 09:56, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I don't understand his argument, no doubt my failing.
I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule has to stuck in somehow. It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be derived from the linear evolution. Somehow a probability has to be introduced. Once there is a probability measure, then it can be argued via Gleason's theorem that the only consistent measure is the Born rule.
Brent
I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one CANNOT derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether one affirms MWI or not, the only thing one has to work with is an ensemble generated by measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive Born's rule using a one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so with many-worlds, since in operational terms -- what is observed -- the two interpretations are indistinguishable. AG
We are in many worlds simultaneously. The reason that the particles seems to go in two holes at once, is that we are in two similar worlds, with the only difference being that that particle path.
The statistics come from the fact that there are infinitely many computations (in arithmetic) going through or mental state (as described as the relevant level of description: indeed a universal machine cannot distinguish them.
“Many-world” is a misleading label. There are no possible evidence for “worlds”, but it is easy (albeit tedious) to prove that all computations are realised, or emulated, in virtue of the true relations between numbers.
Are mechanism does put light on Everett QM, and that is why Everett used mechanism, but he failed to see where the compilations originate from.
Those advocating the existence of a (one) physical world have to abandon Mechanism (but then also Drawin, and most contemporary discoveries).
Bruno
ISTM that whether we affirm one world or many worlds, all we can ever measure is what observe in this world, and it is from this world that we generate an ensemble after many trials from which to observe and affirm Born's rule. What am I missing, if anything? TIA, AG--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1b4c467f-17bd-4438-aa05-1e9db3cb7562%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/122e8820-b97d-4f03-8250-7a0b421b9fa3%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/44284F11-7D8E-4258-B5D7-7A302EB1770E%40ulb.ac.be.
On 2/16/2020 5:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2020, at 09:56, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I don't understand his argument, no doubt my failing.
I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule has to stuck in somehow. It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be derived from the linear evolution. Somehow a probability has to be introduced. Once there is a probability measure, then it can be argued via Gleason's theorem that the only consistent measure is the Born rule.
Brent
I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one CANNOT derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether one affirms MWI or not, the only thing one has to work with is an ensemble generated by measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive Born's rule using a one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so with many-worlds, since in operational terms -- what is observed -- the two interpretations are indistinguishable. AG
We are in many worlds simultaneously. The reason that the particles seems to go in two holes at once, is that we are in two similar worlds, with the only difference being that that particle path.
They have to be in the same world. Otherwise they wouldn't interfere.
Brent
The statistics come from the fact that there are infinitely many computations (in arithmetic) going through or mental state (as described as the relevant level of description: indeed a universal machine cannot distinguish them.
“Many-world” is a misleading label. There are no possible evidence for “worlds”, but it is easy (albeit tedious) to prove that all computations are realised, or emulated, in virtue of the true relations between numbers.
Are mechanism does put light on Everett QM, and that is why Everett used mechanism, but he failed to see where the compilations originate from.
Those advocating the existence of a (one) physical world have to abandon Mechanism (but then also Drawin, and most contemporary discoveries).
Bruno
On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't mean THIS world doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the process of measurement. AGThat's nice.@philipthriftNice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement is done in this world, it splits into two worlds, each with one of the possible measurements. I see only one world being created, with this world remaining intact, and then comes the second measurement, with its opposite occurring in another world, or perhaps in the same world created by the first measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds created is N, or less. Isn't this what the MWI means? AGThere is one measurement M in world w, with two possible outcomes: O1 and O2.There are not two measurements M1 and M2.Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not assigned "this" and the other assigned "that", They have equal status in MWI reality. One is not privileged over the other in any way.@philipthriftThis is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I wrote, which is pretty simple. AGWhat you wrote has nothing to do with MWI. You created something different from MWI (in the Carroll sense).But's OK to have your own interpretation.It's your own "interpretation", not MWI. Publish it and call it something else.@philipthriftI suppose I'm just following Tegmark; everything that CAN happen, MUST happen. So, when an observer measures UP (or DN) in THIS world, another world comes into existence wherein an observer MUST measure DN (or UP). From this I get N or less worlds for N trials where the results of measurements are binary, such as spin. Maybe not precisely MWI, but definitely less stupid -- but still egregiously stupid. How could MWI be remotely correctly if it alleges THIS world splits when it's never observed?
But now you say that for Everett there's no such thing as THIS world. All this stuff, including Bruno's BS, is so profoundly dumb, I can't believe we're even discussing it! Was it Brent on another thread who claimed many physicists have become cultists? Whoever made that claim qualifies for sanity. AG
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7d2bbd20-fcf6-4882-b9e3-c55322a9deb7%40googlegroups.com.
On 16 Feb 2020, at 19:02, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 2/16/2020 5:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2020, at 09:56, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I don't understand his argument, no doubt my failing.
I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule has to stuck in somehow. It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be derived from the linear evolution. Somehow a probability has to be introduced. Once there is a probability measure, then it can be argued via Gleason's theorem that the only consistent measure is the Born rule.
Brent
I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one CANNOT derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether one affirms MWI or not, the only thing one has to work with is an ensemble generated by measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive Born's rule using a one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so with many-worlds, since in operational terms -- what is observed -- the two interpretations are indistinguishable. AG
We are in many worlds simultaneously. The reason that the particles seems to go in two holes at once, is that we are in two similar worlds, with the only difference being that that particle path.
They have to be in the same world. Otherwise they wouldn't interfere.
Brent
The statistics come from the fact that there are infinitely many computations (in arithmetic) going through or mental state (as described as the relevant level of description: indeed a universal machine cannot distinguish them.
“Many-world” is a misleading label. There are no possible evidence for “worlds”, but it is easy (albeit tedious) to prove that all computations are realised, or emulated, in virtue of the true relations between numbers.
Are mechanism does put light on Everett QM, and that is why Everett used mechanism, but he failed to see where the compilations originate from.
Those advocating the existence of a (one) physical world have to abandon Mechanism (but then also Drawin, and most contemporary discoveries).
Bruno
ISTM that whether we affirm one world or many worlds, all we can ever measure is what observe in this world, and it is from this world that we generate an ensemble after many trials from which to observe and affirm Born's rule. What am I missing, if anything? TIA, AG--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1b4c467f-17bd-4438-aa05-1e9db3cb7562%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/122e8820-b97d-4f03-8250-7a0b421b9fa3%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/44284F11-7D8E-4258-B5D7-7A302EB1770E%40ulb.ac.be.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1bf8a916-bd2d-16dc-d6a5-a76c1a9c625a%40verizon.net.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
If there are genetic codes which create unicorns, do they exist, somewhere?
Well maybe, given enough time. I'll grant you that.
But the horse which loses a race in this world, doesn't imply another world in which it wins.
Why should it? This is the basic flaw in this nonsense. There is absolutely no basis for believing in another world in which the horse wins;
or if I get spin UP in this world, there must be another world in which another copy of me measures spin DN.
You justify this by appeals to words and processes I don't fully understand, but they cannot lead to such nonsense.
You're just making some critical errors in judgment which I could possibly locate
if I wanted to get into your system. But since I know your conclusions are wrong,
I am not motivated to do so. I can't explain collapse. But I'd rather to just say I don't know, than to embrace the nonsense of MW.
Have you considered forgetting about wf's and just use Dirac's Matrix Mechanics
instead of the SWE? In MM there are no waves so no collapse to worry about.
Why focus on collapse of the wf when you can use MM? AG
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7d2bbd20-fcf6-4882-b9e3-c55322a9deb7%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4296ca3a-7521-4bdb-87cb-ed9a837c8289%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4296ca3a-7521-4bdb-87cb-ed9a837c8289%40googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1eff8d42-50b5-4067-bc37-f3315cc8ed5d%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1eff8d42-50b5-4067-bc37-f3315cc8ed5d%40googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/20af6008-53cd-444e-9b99-2cfe77ad3ada%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/20af6008-53cd-444e-9b99-2cfe77ad3ada%40googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/89cc9206-c4e9-417d-97ed-a11bc3ff0808%40googlegroups.com.
f you can't answer this question, your model should not be taken seriously. OTOH, I leave the answer open. I'm willing to acknowledge that I don't know how our universe is "supported", or if it needs to be supported. You claim to have the answer. But you're like the King who has no clothes. AG
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/482eaa9d-18c9-4e8a-bcdd-bbd4a768cad0%40googlegroups.com.
If you can't answer this question, your model should not be taken seriously. OTOH, I leave the answer open. I'm willing to acknowledge that I don't know how our universe is "supported", or if it needs to be supported. You claim to have the answer. But you're like the King who has no clothes. AG
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
--If you can't answer this question, your model should not be taken seriously. OTOH, I leave the answer open. I'm willing to acknowledge that I don't know how our universe is "supported", or if it needs to be supported. You claim to have the answer. But you're like the King who has no clothes. AG--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/482eaa9d-18c9-4e8a-bcdd-bbd4a768cad0%40googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8e9fe0ee-30a2-46c3-9999-c1fbaaf80235%40googlegroups.com.
--If you can't answer this question, your model should not be taken seriously. OTOH, I leave the answer open. I'm willing to acknowledge that I don't know how our universe is "supported", or if it needs to be supported. You claim to have the answer. But you're like the King who has no clothes. AG--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/482eaa9d-18c9-4e8a-bcdd-bbd4a768cad0%40googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8e9fe0ee-30a2-46c3-9999-c1fbaaf80235%40googlegroups.com.
----If you can't answer this question, your model should not be taken seriously. OTOH, I leave the answer open. I'm willing to acknowledge that I don't know how our universe is "supported", or if it needs to be supported. You claim to have the answer. But you're like the King who has no clothes. AG--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/482eaa9d-18c9-4e8a-bcdd-bbd4a768cad0%40googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8e9fe0ee-30a2-46c3-9999-c1fbaaf80235%40googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7bd2709e-8dbe-43c1-bd60-bbe2964e333f%40googlegroups.com.
----If you can't answer this question, your model should not be taken seriously. OTOH, I leave the answer open. I'm willing to acknowledge that I don't know how our universe is "supported", or if it needs to be supported. You claim to have the answer. But you're like the King who has no clothes. AG--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/482eaa9d-18c9-4e8a-bcdd-bbd4a768cad0%40googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8e9fe0ee-30a2-46c3-9999-c1fbaaf80235%40googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7bd2709e-8dbe-43c1-bd60-bbe2964e333f%40googlegroups.com.
--All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)
----If you can't answer this question, your model should not be taken seriously. OTOH, I leave the answer open. I'm willing to acknowledge that I don't know how our universe is "supported", or if it needs to be supported. You claim to have the answer. But you're like the King who has no clothes. AG--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/482eaa9d-18c9-4e8a-bcdd-bbd4a768cad0%40googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8e9fe0ee-30a2-46c3-9999-c1fbaaf80235%40googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7bd2709e-8dbe-43c1-bd60-bbe2964e333f%40googlegroups.com.
--All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)
What is being computed? What, or who wrote the program? Or is there no program? If no program, your claim makes no sense in being an analogy with computers we have. AG
------If you can't answer this question, your model should not be taken seriously. OTOH, I leave the answer open. I'm willing to acknowledge that I don't know how our universe is "supported", or if it needs to be supported. You claim to have the answer. But you're like the King who has no clothes. AG--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/482eaa9d-18c9-4e8a-bcdd-bbd4a768cad0%40googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8e9fe0ee-30a2-46c3-9999-c1fbaaf80235%40googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7bd2709e-8dbe-43c1-bd60-bbe2964e333f%40googlegroups.com.
--All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)--All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5b10a31d-9f42-4783-bdf5-89872254116b%40googlegroups.com.
All I have done is ask for the basis of your claim -- such as that our consciousness is being computed -- but I haven't seen it.
I am not necessarily saying your wrong. I am just asking why you seem so certain you are right.
I'm not even clear what it means to compute consciousness. AG
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dd75c02e-43fd-40ac-bb0d-d0dc74aad495%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dd75c02e-43fd-40ac-bb0d-d0dc74aad495%40googlegroups.com.
As a rudimentary result, there is only one world, this world.
Also, you speak of computations, but where is the computer doing the computations?
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1eff8d42-50b5-4067-bc37-f3315cc8ed5d%40googlegroups.com.
If you can't answer this question, your model should not be taken seriously. OTOH, I leave the answer open. I'm willing to acknowledge that I don't know how our universe is "supported", or if it needs to be supported. You claim to have the answer. But you're like the King who has no clothes. AG--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/482eaa9d-18c9-4e8a-bcdd-bbd4a768cad0%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8e9fe0ee-30a2-46c3-9999-c1fbaaf80235%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAoMi1D0gykHETvyCEDNLKbTQcx-iQag-SW00UaAVDijLw%40mail.gmail.com.
Well if we create one day a full AGI, then that's what it will mean... it will be a consciousness and computed... And for any computation, there are an infinity of possible implementations, we are then in the idea of Bruno. But that only work if computations have an ontological status (meaning they're all *existing* timelessly)…
But instead of insulting, you should read, we're in a discussion group after all, and if you're not interrested in some hypothesis, don't read them... You can have all the beliefs you want, here we're discussing, not asserting one's belief is better and the other stupid...At least being able to create a full AGI would give credence to the computational hypothesis, but much more would need to be done, I'm not even sure that can be settled, because it can easily lead to everything is geography.QuentinAGI = artificial general intelligence? I see a world. It seems real.
Your hypothesis is that it's an illusion generated by computations, which are somehow "real”.
Why should anyone entertain that hypothesis?
How could consciousness be generated by computations, and what is doing the computations?
A person's brain, or some super brain existing in hyperspace, or beyond the space-time continuum? I get annoyed because I don't see anything to hang my hat on, so to speak. It seems like fantasy talk. AG
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dd75c02e-43fd-40ac-bb0d-d0dc74aad495%40googlegroups.com.
--All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c41889e7-cc10-4891-8be7-05fe329b62c1%40googlegroups.com.
There is no external, abstract computation outside matter that has ever existed.@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c7c607ec-9d65-4753-b2a1-3fab87abb6a5%40googlegroups.com.
On 19 Feb 2020, at 12:14, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 3:13:35 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:34:20 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:54:21 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:What is being computed? What, or who wrote the program? Or is there no program? If no program, your claim makes no sense in being an analogy with computers we have. AGMatter isbut naturally, not synthetically.@philipthriftMatter computes when it has specific structures and inputs. It doesn't create or sustain reality in an ontological sense, which is what the argument is about. That is, matter and computations in the link you offer, is preexisting and assumed. AGThat's exactly right.And also all human-made computers we've ever made - from abacus to laptop - perform computations by moving stuff - beads or electrons - from one place to another.This describes the computation implemented in a physical reality. But since Gödel 1931, we know (or should know) that they are implemented also in arithmetic. If you believe that only the physical computations can be conscious, you might try to find what in matter is not Turing emulable, and would play a role in consciousness. Now, if you find that, you will have to reject Digital Mechanism, which is my point.BrunoThere is no external, abstract computation outside matter that has ever existed.@philipthrift
@philipthrift--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5b53a11e-d780-49b9-9d6d-a8efd378bfa8%40googlegroups.com.
I see no reason to entertain this hypothesis. What is your plausibility argument? AG--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dd75c02e-43fd-40ac-bb0d-d0dc74aad495%40googlegroups.com.
--All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a57faa15-0bb8-4eac-907b-d9a97129820b%40googlegroups.com.