Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why

[John Clark]

Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why

John K Clark

[smitra]

That's a good explanation. As pointed out in the video, there is really
only one wavefunction, which is the wavefunction of the entire universe.

On 06-02-2021 20:27, John Clark wrote:
> Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why [1]
>
> John K Clark
>
> --
> 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/CAJPayv3X6qaRJecTGkBq596HR_dhHLnpR5M_o6VJcYF%2BLGK%3DRg%40mail.gmail.com
> [2].
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTXTPe3wahc&t=7s
> [2]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3X6qaRJecTGkBq596HR_dhHLnpR5M_o6VJcYF%2BLGK%3DRg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, February 6, 2021 at 4:05:38 PM UTC-7 smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:

That's a good explanation. As pointed out in the video, there is really
only one wavefunction, which is the wavefunction of the entire universe.

At around 5:15 he makes the fundamental error IMO in describing superposition; namely, that a system can be in different states simultaneously. It's the myth about QM which is hard to shake. Why not just assume an ignorance interpretation of superposition; namely, there are several states a system could be in, often with different probabilities, but we don't know which one? I don't see this as an inherent denial of interference, which I think is why this interpretation is rejected. AG 

[John Clark]

On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 2:29 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> At around 5:15 he makes the fundamental error IMO in describing superposition; namely, that a system can be in different states simultaneously. It's the myth about QM which is hard to shake. Why not just assume an ignorance interpretation of superposition; namely, there are several states a system could be in, often with different probabilities, but we don't know which one?

We've been over this before, more than once, more than twice, much more! I hope you don't think you're the first to come up with the Idea that it's all simply a case of our ignorance, that argument was semi-respectable when weird quantum effects first started to show up around the turn of the 20th century but has not been respected among physicists for more than 50 years. Your explanation is rejected because it just doesn't jive with experimental observations. There is simply no doubt about it, Bell's Inequality is violated. You may not like the way the universe is run, but the universe cares even less if you like it or not, that's just the way things are.

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

.

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, February 7, 2021 at 4:42:26 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 2:29 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> At around 5:15 he makes the fundamental error IMO in describing superposition; namely, that a system can be in different states simultaneously. It's the myth about QM which is hard to shake. Why not just assume an ignorance interpretation of superposition; namely, there are several states a system could be in, often with different probabilities, but we don't know which one?

We've been over this before, more than once, more than twice, much more! I hope you don't think you're the first to come up with the Idea that it's all simply a case of our ignorance,

Not my claim. Just your distorting BS. I don't deny interference. AG

 

that argument was semi-respectable when weird quantum effects first started to show up around the turn of the 20th century but has not been respected among physicists for more than 50 years. Your explanation is rejected because it just doesn't jive with experimental observations.

Try being specific, and stop the hydroelectric BS. In the double slit e.g., we can apply DeBroglie's insight, namely, that the entity detected at the screen behaves as a wave  before detection, and thus goes through both slits and interferes with itself. AG

 

There is simply no doubt about it, Bell's Inequality is violated.

What has the ignorance interpretation of superposition before measurement has to do with Bell's Inequality? As long as I don't deny the existence of interference, there is nothing wrong with what I claim. And it does solve Schroedinger's cat paradox.  AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, February 7, 2021 at 6:43:25 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Sunday, February 7, 2021 at 4:42:26 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 2:29 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> At around 5:15 he makes the fundamental error IMO in describing superposition; namely, that a system can be in different states simultaneously. It's the myth about QM which is hard to shake. Why not just assume an ignorance interpretation of superposition; namely, there are several states a system could be in, often with different probabilities, but we don't know which one?

We've been over this before, more than once, more than twice, much more! I hope you don't think you're the first to come up with the Idea that it's all simply a case of our ignorance,

Not my claim. Just your distorting BS. I don't deny interference. AG

 

that argument was semi-respectable when weird quantum effects first started to show up around the turn of the 20th century but has not been respected among physicists for more than 50 years. Your explanation is rejected because it just doesn't jive with experimental observations.

Try being specific, and stop the hydroelectric BS. In the double slit e.g., we can apply DeBroglie's insight, namely, that the entity detected at the screen behaves as a wave  before detection, and thus goes through both slits and interferes with itself. AG

 

There is simply no doubt about it, Bell's Inequality is violated.

What has the ignorance interpretation of superposition before measurement has to do with Bell's Inequality? As long as I don't deny the existence of interference, there is nothing wrong with what I claim. And it does solve Schroedinger's cat paradox.  AG

What you don't seem to get is that the mathematics of QM doesn't change if you adopt the ignorance interpretation of superposition. Since the mathematics doesn't change, never does the results of the mathematics. The only value of thinking a system can be in multiple different states simultaneously is to add a magical unnecessary addition to the theory. It doesn't effect Bell results or anything else. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le dim. 7 févr. 2021 à 14:43, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Sunday, February 7, 2021 at 4:42:26 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 2:29 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> At around 5:15 he makes the fundamental error IMO in describing superposition; namely, that a system can be in different states simultaneously. It's the myth about QM which is hard to shake. Why not just assume an ignorance interpretation of superposition; namely, there are several states a system could be in, often with different probabilities, but we don't know which one?

We've been over this before, more than once, more than twice, much more! I hope you don't think you're the first to come up with the Idea that it's all simply a case of our ignorance,

Not my claim. Just your distorting BS. I don't deny interference. AG

 

that argument was semi-respectable when weird quantum effects first started to show up around the turn of the 20th century but has not been respected among physicists for more than 50 years. Your explanation is rejected because it just doesn't jive with experimental observations.

Try being specific, and stop the hydroelectric BS. In the double slit e.g., we can apply DeBroglie's insight, namely, that the entity detected at the screen behaves as a wave  before detection, and thus goes through both slits and interferes with itself. AG

 

There is simply no doubt about it, Bell's Inequality is violated.

What has the ignorance interpretation of superposition before measurement has to do with Bell's Inequality?

Because ignorance means it's hidden variable.

So only non-local hidden variable is compatible with ignorance... Not sure it's better.

As long as I don't deny the existence of interference, there is nothing wrong with what I claim. And it does solve Schroedinger's cat paradox.  AG

You may not like the way the universe is run, but the universe cares even less if you like it or not, that's just the way things are.

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

.

--

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/fd481b0a-bf8b-41b0-9468-b78f2b512d58n%40googlegroups.com.

[John Clark]

On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 8:43 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

> that argument was semi-respectable when weird quantum effects first started to show up around the turn of the 20th century but has not been respected among physicists for more than 50 years. Your explanation is rejected because it just doesn't jive with experimental observations.

> Try being specific, and stop the hydroelectric BS.

A hydroelectric dam producing electricity and the accelerating expansion of the universe caused by the intrinsic energy of empty space,  both convert negative gravitational potential energy into positive kinetic energy that can do work, in the first case by falling inward and in the second case by falling outward. And I explained previously to you exactly why that is so. And that is no BS.

>> There is simply no doubt about it, Bell's Inequality is violated.

> What has the ignorance interpretation of superposition before measurement has to do with Bell's Inequality?

I see no point in explaining that to you, again, when you'll just ask the exact same question, again, assuming you'd even read my response which I doubt because it sure doesn't look like you have in the past.  You have access to all the world's knowledge at your fingertips through the Internet, so do your homework and educate yourself.  Then we'll talk.

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, February 7, 2021 at 9:08:58 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 8:43 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

> that argument was semi-respectable when weird quantum effects first started to show up around the turn of the 20th century but has not been respected among physicists for more than 50 years. Your explanation is rejected because it just doesn't jive with experimental observations.

> Try being specific, and stop the hydroelectric BS.

A hydroelectric dam producing electricity and the accelerating expansion of the universe caused by the intrinsic energy of empty space,  both convert negative gravitational potential energy into positive kinetic energy that can do work, in the first case by falling inward and in the second case by falling outward. And I explained previously to you exactly why that is so. And that is no BS.

The flaw in your analysis is that the "negative" in PE is a convention, not a law of physics. There is no way to magically change negative energy (what the hell is that?) to positive energy. AG 

>> There is simply no doubt about it, Bell's Inequality is violated.

> What has the ignorance interpretation of superposition before measurement has to do with Bell's Inequality?

I see no point in explaining that to you, again, when you'll just ask the exact same question, again, assuming you'd even read my response which I doubt because it sure doesn't look like you have in the past.  You have access to all the world's knowledge at your fingertips through the Internet, so do your homework and educate yourself.  Then we'll talk.

In fact I read your original analysis several times and see no principled route to your conclusion. You're just reaching a conclusion which pleases you about total energy of the universe being exactly zero. You're just assuming the dark energy fills the gap, after the total energy of what we can observe is estimated. And I note that you never referenced dark energy or matter in your original message. Further, about the ignorance interpretation implying hidden variables, I didn't intend that inference. All I am really asserting is that we can just dispense with the idea that a system can be in multiple different states simultaneously, and no harm is done since the mathematics of QM remains unchanged. Think about that! But keeping that claim, great harm is done since it unnecessarily mystifies the theory. AG 

[smitra]

On 07-02-2021 08:29, Alan Grayson wrote:
> On Saturday, February 6, 2021 at 4:05:38 PM UTC-7 smi...@zonnet.nl
> wrote:
>
>> That's a good explanation. As pointed out in the video, there is
>> really
>> only one wavefunction, which is the wavefunction of the entire
>> universe.
>
> At around 5:15 he makes the fundamental error IMO in describing
> superposition; namely, that a system can be in different states
> simultaneously. It's the myth about QM which is hard to shake. Why not
> just assume an ignorance interpretation of superposition; namely,
> there are several states a system could be in, often with different
> probabilities, but we don't know which one? I don't see this as an
> inherent denial of interference, which I think is why this
> interpretation is rejected. AG

It is true that a system being in different states simultaneously is a
poor way of describing what is going on, because "simultaneously" refers
to events in one universe, while what is meant is that there are
parallel worlds in which everything is the same including the state of
any clocks that measures time, except that the photon takes a different
path.

And, as others have already pointed out in this thread, it can't be due
to ignorance as that's ruled out by the violation of Bell's inequality.
See also this experiment that demonstrates this in a much simpler way
than using Bell inequalities:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1418&v=EtyNMlXN-sw

Saibal

>
>> On 06-02-2021 20:27, John Clark wrote:
>>> Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why [1]
>>>
>>> John K Clark
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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/CAJPayv3X6qaRJecTGkBq596HR_dhHLnpR5M_o6VJcYF%2BLGK%3DRg%40mail.gmail.com
>>
>>> [2].
>>>
>>>
>>> Links:
>>> ------
>>> [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTXTPe3wahc&amp;t=7s
>>> [2]
>>>
>>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3X6qaRJecTGkBq596HR_dhHLnpR5M_o6VJcYF%2BLGK%3DRg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
>
> --
> 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/6165298b-49ff-42d7-975e-3d8ea621af5bn%40googlegroups.com
> [1].
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6165298b-49ff-42d7-975e-3d8ea621af5bn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, February 7, 2021 at 6:14:39 PM UTC-7 smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:

On 07-02-2021 08:29, Alan Grayson wrote:
> On Saturday, February 6, 2021 at 4:05:38 PM UTC-7 smi...@zonnet.nl
> wrote:
>
>> That's a good explanation. As pointed out in the video, there is
>> really
>> only one wavefunction, which is the wavefunction of the entire
>> universe.
>
> At around 5:15 he makes the fundamental error IMO in describing
> superposition; namely, that a system can be in different states
> simultaneously. It's the myth about QM which is hard to shake. Why not
> just assume an ignorance interpretation of superposition; namely,
> there are several states a system could be in, often with different
> probabilities, but we don't know which one? I don't see this as an
> inherent denial of interference, which I think is why this
> interpretation is rejected. AG

It is true that a system being in different states simultaneously is a
poor way of describing what is going on, because "simultaneously" refers
to events in one universe, while what is meant is that there are
parallel worlds in which everything is the same including the state of
any clocks that measures time, except that the photon takes a different
path.

I suppose you mean that another world is created for each eigenstate of the superposition. I've shown the fallacy of this interpretation in other discussions here, but haven't received a plausible reply. Specifically, since we're dealing with linear algebra, Hilbert spaces, there is no unique basis and therefore no unique superposition describing the same wf! So the worlds you claim to exist are over-determined. What worlds are you referring to? Which basis and eigenstates are you using, and why is that basis to be preferred? AG 

And, as others have already pointed out in this thread, it can't be due
to ignorance as that's ruled out by the violation of Bell's inequality.

By "ignorance" I am NOT asserting the existence of hidden variables. I merely prefer to say we don't know anything more than different probabilities for different possible outcomes. Why does this force anyone to assume hidden variables? AG 

See also this experiment that demonstrates this in a much simpler way
than using Bell inequalities:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1418&v=EtyNMlXN-sw

TY. I'll try to view this. AG 

[John Clark]

On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 7:25 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> A hydroelectric dam producing electricity and the accelerating expansion of the universe caused by the intrinsic energy of empty space,  both convert negative gravitational potential energy into positive kinetic energy that can do work, in the first case by falling inward and in the second case by falling outward. And I explained previously to you exactly why that is so. And that is no BS.

> The flaw in your analysis is that the "negative" in PE is a convention, not a law of physics.

Without that "convention" there would be no law of conservation of energy at all.  

 

>There is no way to magically change negative energy (what the hell is that?)

I know a guy who can answer that question, ask Isaac Newton, he knew what negative gravitational potential energy was over 300 years ago. Albert Einstein could also answer your question.  

 

> to positive energy. AG 

And tell that to the engineers who make hydroelectric dams.

 

> You're just reaching a conclusion which pleases you about total energy of the universe being exactly zero.

It's not just me, the idea that the total energy in the universe is zero also pleased people like Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman and Alan Guth who invented the idea of cosmic inflation. And the evidence is piling up that it's probably true. 

Zero-energy universe

> You're just assuming the dark energy fills the gap, after the total energy of what we can observe is estimated. And I note that you never referenced dark energy or matter in your original message.

That is flat out untrue, and as far as this argument is concerned it makes no difference if the matter in the universe is composed of Dark Matter or normal everyday Baryonic Matter because gravity treats both of them exactly the same way; and that's why Dark Energy does not have the word "matter" in it, gravity treats it differently. When a cloud of Baryonic Matter expands it does not get more massive, but when a cloud of Dark Energy expands it does, assuming that a  property of space is for it to have a residual energy, and it's looking increasingly likely that it does.

 

> All I am really asserting is that we can just dispense with the idea that a system can be in multiple different states simultaneously,

Sure you can dispense with that, if you don't mind ignoring empirical evidence and abandoning the scientific method in general.  

John K Clark     See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

.

[Alan Grayson]

Consider a system with two possible states with probabilities 30% and 70% before measurement. I would agree that the system is in both states simultaneously IF the probabilities were 100% for each. But that violates one of the postulates of frequentist probability. So which do you think is more logical; that in the 30%/70% case the system is in both states simultaneously, or in neither state? AG 

Concerning the convention for PE, if one moves a test mass from R1 to R2 in a central gravity field, where R1 < R2, aren't we calculating the work done against the field? Yes or No? We can call this work negative or positive. Do you agree the choice is just a convention? This cannot effect conservation of energy, which is an empirical result, or what works in hydroelectric facility. AG

[Bruno Marchal]

On 7 Feb 2021, at 08:29, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, February 6, 2021 at 4:05:38 PM UTC-7 smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:

That's a good explanation. As pointed out in the video, there is really
only one wavefunction, which is the wavefunction of the entire universe.

At around 5:15 he makes the fundamental error IMO in describing superposition; namely, that a system can be in different states simultaneously. It's the myth about QM which is hard to shake. Why not just assume an ignorance interpretation of superposition; namely, there are several states a system could be in, often with different probabilities, but we don't know which one? I don't see this as an inherent denial of interference, which I think is why this interpretation is rejected. AG 

That would made a pure state like 1/sqrt(2)( up + down) into a mixture of states up and down, which gives different results than the pure state when measured in another base. Deutsch illustrates this already from the two slits experience. 

Keeping the “ignorance” interpretation would make that ignorance  interacting at a distance, and consciousness or absence of consciousness would “act” on matter, even non-locally (and FTL). That is far too much more speculative than multiplying and differentiating the relative histories. Nature likes to multiply things, like the molecule of waters in the ocean, the planets, the galaxies, and why not, the relative histories (given that it explains what we see, and what mechanism already predicted)

“Many histories” is the less “magical” explanation, and it requires only that an observer has some memory of repeated experience. 

And then, as I said, the whole of QM eventually becomes explainable as a confirmation of the many computations which are realised in Arithmetic, as logicians knows since the 1930s.

Bruno

On 06-02-2021 20:27, John Clark wrote:
> Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why [1]
>
> John K Clark
>
> --
> 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/CAJPayv3X6qaRJecTGkBq596HR_dhHLnpR5M_o6VJcYF%2BLGK%3DRg%40mail.gmail.com
> [2].
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTXTPe3wahc&amp;t=7s
> [2]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3X6qaRJecTGkBq596HR_dhHLnpR5M_o6VJcYF%2BLGK%3DRg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

--
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/6165298b-49ff-42d7-975e-3d8ea621af5bn%40googlegroups.com.

[Brent Meeker]

On 2/8/2021 4:12 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 4:13:38 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 7:25 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> A hydroelectric dam producing electricity and the accelerating expansion of the universe caused by the intrinsic energy of empty space,  both convert negative gravitational potential energy into positive kinetic energy that can do work, in the first case by falling inward and in the second case by falling outward. And I explained previously to you exactly why that is so. And that is no BS.

> The flaw in your analysis is that the "negative" in PE is a convention, not a law of physics.

Without that "convention" there would be no law of conservation of energy at all.  

 

>There is no way to magically change negative energy (what the hell is that?)

I know a guy who can answer that question, ask Isaac Newton, he knew what negative gravitational potential energy was over 300 years ago. Albert Einstein could also answer your question.  

 

> to positive energy. AG 

And tell that to the engineers who make hydroelectric dams.

 

> You're just reaching a conclusion which pleases you about total energy of the universe being exactly zero.

It's not just me, the idea that the total energy in the universe is zero also pleased people like Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman and Alan Guth who invented the idea of cosmic inflation. And the evidence is piling up that it's probably true. 

Zero-energy universe

> You're just assuming the dark energy fills the gap, after the total energy of what we can observe is estimated. And I note that you never referenced dark energy or matter in your original message.

That is flat out untrue, and as far as this argument is concerned it makes no difference if the matter in the universe is composed of Dark Matter or normal everyday Baryonic Matter because gravity treats both of them exactly the same way; and that's why Dark Energy does not have the word "matter" in it, gravity treats it differently. When a cloud of Baryonic Matter expands it does not get more massive, but when a cloud of Dark Energy expands it does, assuming that a  property of space is for it to have a residual energy, and it's looking increasingly likely that it does.

 

> All I am really asserting is that we can just dispense with the idea that a system can be in multiple different states simultaneously,

Sure you can dispense with that, if you don't mind ignoring empirical evidence and abandoning the scientific method in general.  

Consider a system with two possible states with probabilities 30% and 70% before measurement. I would agree that the system is in both states simultaneously IF the probabilities were 100% for each. But that violates one of the postulates of frequentist probability. So which do you think is more logical; that in the 30%/70% case the system is in both states simultaneously, or in neither state? AG

You don't seem to understand Hilbert space is just a special case of vector spaces.  If your state is having a momentum on a  heading of 45deg, then it's a superposition of |North>+|East>.  "Superposition" is only relative to some basis.  We right things that way when we have instruments that measure "North" and "East", but none that measure NE.

Brent

Concerning the convention for PE, if one moves a test mass from R1 to R2 in a central gravity field, where R1 < R2, aren't we calculating the work done against the field? Yes or No? We can call this work negative or positive. Do you agree the choice is just a convention? This cannot effect conservation of energy, which is an empirical result, or what works in hydroelectric facility. AG

John K Clark     See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

.

--
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/ec315ce0-6192-4c99-859a-bc00e053d7e6n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 1:25:47 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote:

On 2/8/2021 4:12 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 4:13:38 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 7:25 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> A hydroelectric dam producing electricity and the accelerating expansion of the universe caused by the intrinsic energy of empty space,  both convert negative gravitational potential energy into positive kinetic energy that can do work, in the first case by falling inward and in the second case by falling outward. And I explained previously to you exactly why that is so. And that is no BS.

> The flaw in your analysis is that the "negative" in PE is a convention, not a law of physics.

Without that "convention" there would be no law of conservation of energy at all.  

 

>There is no way to magically change negative energy (what the hell is that?)

I know a guy who can answer that question, ask Isaac Newton, he knew what negative gravitational potential energy was over 300 years ago. Albert Einstein could also answer your question.  

 

> to positive energy. AG 

And tell that to the engineers who make hydroelectric dams.

 

> You're just reaching a conclusion which pleases you about total energy of the universe being exactly zero.

It's not just me, the idea that the total energy in the universe is zero also pleased people like Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman and Alan Guth who invented the idea of cosmic inflation. And the evidence is piling up that it's probably true. 

Zero-energy universe

> You're just assuming the dark energy fills the gap, after the total energy of what we can observe is estimated. And I note that you never referenced dark energy or matter in your original message.

That is flat out untrue, and as far as this argument is concerned it makes no difference if the matter in the universe is composed of Dark Matter or normal everyday Baryonic Matter because gravity treats both of them exactly the same way; and that's why Dark Energy does not have the word "matter" in it, gravity treats it differently. When a cloud of Baryonic Matter expands it does not get more massive, but when a cloud of Dark Energy expands it does, assuming that a  property of space is for it to have a residual energy, and it's looking increasingly likely that it does.

 

> All I am really asserting is that we can just dispense with the idea that a system can be in multiple different states simultaneously,

Sure you can dispense with that, if you don't mind ignoring empirical evidence and abandoning the scientific method in general.  

Consider a system with two possible states with probabilities 30% and 70% before measurement. I would agree that the system is in both states simultaneously IF the probabilities were 100% for each. But that violates one of the postulates of frequentist probability. So which do you think is more logical; that in the 30%/70% case the system is in both states simultaneously, or in neither state? AG

You don't seem to understand Hilbert space is just a special case of vector spaces.  If your state is having a momentum on a  heading of 45deg, then it's a superposition of |North>+|East>.  "Superposition" is only relative to some basis.  We right things that way when we have instruments that measure "North" and "East", but none that measure NE.

I think you meant "write". In any event, can't we write a superposition of NE even if we can't measure in that direction? More important, I don't think your comment relates to what I wrote immediately above in RED -- which is consistent with Bohr's view that a system is NOT in any specific eigenstate before measurement, and defeats the illusion/delusion that systems before measurement are simultaneously in several eigenstates. AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 1:40:47 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 1:25:47 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote:

On 2/8/2021 4:12 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 4:13:38 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 7:25 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> A hydroelectric dam producing electricity and the accelerating expansion of the universe caused by the intrinsic energy of empty space,  both convert negative gravitational potential energy into positive kinetic energy that can do work, in the first case by falling inward and in the second case by falling outward. And I explained previously to you exactly why that is so. And that is no BS.

> The flaw in your analysis is that the "negative" in PE is a convention, not a law of physics.

Without that "convention" there would be no law of conservation of energy at all.  

 

>There is no way to magically change negative energy (what the hell is that?)

I know a guy who can answer that question, ask Isaac Newton, he knew what negative gravitational potential energy was over 300 years ago. Albert Einstein could also answer your question.  

 

> to positive energy. AG 

And tell that to the engineers who make hydroelectric dams.

 

> You're just reaching a conclusion which pleases you about total energy of the universe being exactly zero.

It's not just me, the idea that the total energy in the universe is zero also pleased people like Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman and Alan Guth who invented the idea of cosmic inflation. And the evidence is piling up that it's probably true. 

Zero-energy universe

> You're just assuming the dark energy fills the gap, after the total energy of what we can observe is estimated. And I note that you never referenced dark energy or matter in your original message.

That is flat out untrue, and as far as this argument is concerned it makes no difference if the matter in the universe is composed of Dark Matter or normal everyday Baryonic Matter because gravity treats both of them exactly the same way; and that's why Dark Energy does not have the word "matter" in it, gravity treats it differently. When a cloud of Baryonic Matter expands it does not get more massive, but when a cloud of Dark Energy expands it does, assuming that a  property of space is for it to have a residual energy, and it's looking increasingly likely that it does.

 

> All I am really asserting is that we can just dispense with the idea that a system can be in multiple different states simultaneously,

Sure you can dispense with that, if you don't mind ignoring empirical evidence and abandoning the scientific method in general.  

Consider a system with two possible states with probabilities 30% and 70% before measurement. I would agree that the system is in both states simultaneously IF the probabilities were 100% for each. But that violates one of the postulates of frequentist probability. So which do you think is more logical; that in the 30%/70% case the system is in both states simultaneously, or in neither state? AG

You don't seem to understand Hilbert space is just a special case of vector spaces.  If your state is having a momentum on a  heading of 45deg, then it's a superposition of |North>+|East>.  "Superposition" is only relative to some basis.  We right things that way when we have instruments that measure "North" and "East", but none that measure NE.

I think you meant "write". In any event, can't we write a superposition of NE even if we can't measure in that direction? More important, I don't think your comment relates to what I wrote immediately above in RED -- which is consistent with Bohr's view that a system is NOT in any specific eigenstate before measurement, and defeats the illusion/delusion that systems before measurement are simultaneously in several eigenstates. AG

I think you're right. One can't write a superposition with "eigenstates" that can't be measured. But I think there could be situations where there are non-unique bases where all elements of the superposition CAN be measured, and therefore that the representation of the wf is not unique. AG 

[Brent Meeker]

On 2/8/2021 12:40 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 1:25:47 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote:

On 2/8/2021 4:12 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 4:13:38 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 7:25 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> A hydroelectric dam producing electricity and the accelerating expansion of the universe caused by the intrinsic energy of empty space,  both convert negative gravitational potential energy into positive kinetic energy that can do work, in the first case by falling inward and in the second case by falling outward. And I explained previously to you exactly why that is so. And that is no BS.

> The flaw in your analysis is that the "negative" in PE is a convention, not a law of physics.

Without that "convention" there would be no law of conservation of energy at all.  

 

>There is no way to magically change negative energy (what the hell is that?)

I know a guy who can answer that question, ask Isaac Newton, he knew what negative gravitational potential energy was over 300 years ago. Albert Einstein could also answer your question.  

 

> to positive energy. AG 

And tell that to the engineers who make hydroelectric dams.

 

> You're just reaching a conclusion which pleases you about total energy of the universe being exactly zero.

It's not just me, the idea that the total energy in the universe is zero also pleased people like Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman and Alan Guth who invented the idea of cosmic inflation. And the evidence is piling up that it's probably true. 

Zero-energy universe

> You're just assuming the dark energy fills the gap, after the total energy of what we can observe is estimated. And I note that you never referenced dark energy or matter in your original message.

That is flat out untrue, and as far as this argument is concerned it makes no difference if the matter in the universe is composed of Dark Matter or normal everyday Baryonic Matter because gravity treats both of them exactly the same way; and that's why Dark Energy does not have the word "matter" in it, gravity treats it differently. When a cloud of Baryonic Matter expands it does not get more massive, but when a cloud of Dark Energy expands it does, assuming that a  property of space is for it to have a residual energy, and it's looking increasingly likely that it does.

 

> All I am really asserting is that we can just dispense with the idea that a system can be in multiple different states simultaneously,

Sure you can dispense with that, if you don't mind ignoring empirical evidence and abandoning the scientific method in general.  

Consider a system with two possible states with probabilities 30% and 70% before measurement. I would agree that the system is in both states simultaneously IF the probabilities were 100% for each. But that violates one of the postulates of frequentist probability. So which do you think is more logical; that in the 30%/70% case the system is in both states simultaneously, or in neither state? AG

You don't seem to understand Hilbert space is just a special case of vector spaces.  If your state is having a momentum on a  heading of 45deg, then it's a superposition of |North>+|East>.  "Superposition" is only relative to some basis.  We right things that way when we have instruments that measure "North" and "East", but none that measure NE.

I think you meant "write". In any event, can't we write a superposition of NE even if we can't measure in that direction?

Sure we could write it that way.  Any pure state if conceptually a single ray in Hilbert space.  That it's written in terms of components that are observable is up to us.

More important, I don't think your comment relates to what I wrote immediately above in RED -- which is consistent with Bohr's view that a system is NOT in any specific eigenstate before measurement

I don't know the quote from Bohr, but I suspect it's leaving out the context that the system is not in an eigenstate of the variable measured before it is measured.  That just means the state NE is not North or East before you measure with your North-or-East instrument.

Brent

, and defeats the illusion/delusion that systems before measurement are simultaneously in several eigenstates. AG

Brent

Concerning the convention for PE, if one moves a test mass from R1 to R2 in a central gravity field, where R1 < R2, aren't we calculating the work done against the field? Yes or No? We can call this work negative or positive. Do you agree the choice is just a convention? This cannot effect conservation of energy, which is an empirical result, or what works in hydroelectric facility. AG

John K Clark     See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

.

--
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/ec315ce0-6192-4c99-859a-bc00e053d7e6n%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/18c9d10b-59c4-43c5-977d-a02927551553n%40googlegroups.com.

[smitra]

Yes, that's a valid objection, one cannot just take some arbitrary
component of the wavefunction and declare that to be some world on an
ad-hoc basis. Note that there is no "official MWI" that people who say
they support the MWI stick to and some questions like this one, or the
way one should interpret probabilities and other such problems, will get
different answers depending on who you ask.

The basis problem has, i.m.o., a simple solution. You have to define the
physical observer states first. Or at least you have to consider that
such physical states exist. I would define an observer who is aware of
observing something to be a computation that is processing data such
that all of the the data processed defines everything the observer is
aware of. I.e. not just the result of the observation but also the
identity of the observer, what he had for dinner yesterday, etc. etc. So
there exists in principle a well defined physical state for Saibal to be
aware that the result of a spin measurement was spin up, there also
exists one for Alan if he had performed exactly the same measurement and
found exactly the same result, but because Saibal is not Alan, the
processes are nevertheless different.

While these physical states for observers making observations have an
extremely complicated structure, the general structure that is contained
within them that tells you that a spin in some initial state i was
measured and that the result was r, has a general structure that takes
the form of an entangled superposition where both i and r objectively
exist in the environment and the terms of the superposition contains
information about how the observer would have acted had the input be
different.

So, in the MWI, the states that contain some given observer experiencing
something definite exist, one can then appeal to the existence of such a
basis.

>> And, as others have already pointed out in this thread, it can't be
>> due
>> to ignorance as that's ruled out by the violation of Bell's
>> inequality.
>
> By "ignorance" I am NOT asserting the existence of hidden variables. I
> merely prefer to say we don't know anything more than different
> probabilities for different possible outcomes. Why does this force
> anyone to assume hidden variables? AG
>

If with more knowledge than we currently have about the laws of physics,
we could deduce more about the outcome of the measurement than the
probabilities we can currently derive using QM, then we can already rule
that out using the known experimental results. The only possible options
are then that a more detailed theory does not exist, or that it has
nonlocal features. In the latter case the information about the
measurement result does exist before the measurement is made, but it is
not present locally within the system that is going to be measured.

Saibal

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/38d441ab-45de-4136-95a9-4fbf9d3971den%40googlegroups.com

> [1].
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/38d441ab-45de-4136-95a9-4fbf9d3971den%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

[Alan Grayson]

I wasn't quoting Bohr, but I assume that Bohr (and the CI) assert, that a system in a superposition of states is NOT in any of the eigenstates of the superposition "of the variable measured before it is measured". IOW, before measurement, the system is NOT objectively in any states of the variable being measured; aka no objective properties prior to measurement. But this flies directly in the face of the repeated claim by the usual suspects, professional and otherwise, that the system is in ALL states simultaneously of the eigenstates in the superposition even though these eigenstates each have probabilities LESS than 100%. Consequently, it's more logical -- indeed MUCH more logical -- to assume that the system is NOT simultaneously in all these states, and is indeed in NONE of them before measurement, which is consistent with what I believe Bohr and CI assert. This would seem to dispel a current deep seated myth about CM. Do you understand and agree with my point? AG

On another issue, whether it's legitimate to write such a superposition in terms of eigenstates that cannot presently be measured. I think it is, because any ray in a Hilbert space can so written (that is, any pure state) and such eigenstates MIGHT be measurement with some advanced technology or concepts. So, mathematically, such states can be written regardless of whether the superposed eigenstates are presently measureable. AG

[Brent Meeker]

On 2/8/2021 7:50 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

More important, I don't think your comment relates to what I wrote immediately above in RED -- which is consistent with Bohr's view that a system is NOT in any specific eigenstate before measurement

I don't know the quote from Bohr, but I suspect it's leaving out the context that the system is not in an eigenstate of the variable measured before it is measured.  That just means the state NE is not North or East before you measure with your North-or-East instrument.

Brent

I wasn't quoting Bohr, but I assume that Bohr (and the CI) assert, that a system in a superposition of states is NOT in any of the eigenstates of the superposition "of the variable measured before it is measured".

What is your idea of not being in any eigenstates of the superpositon?   It the state if of a silver atom spin is LEFT it is not in an eigenstate of UP or DN because if you measure it in the UP/DN basis you'll get half UP and half DN.  But it is in a superposition of |UP>+|DN>

IOW, before measurement, the system is NOT objectively in any states of the variable being measured; aka no objective properties prior to measurement. But this flies directly in the face of the repeated claim by the usual suspects, professional and otherwise, that the system is in ALL states simultaneously of the eigenstates in the superposition even though these eigenstates each have probabilities LESS than 100%.

You're confounding "being in an eigenstate" with "having a component is different eigenstates simultaneously".

Consequently, it's more logical -- indeed MUCH more logical -- to assume that the system is NOT simultaneously in all these states, and is indeed in NONE of them before measurement, which is consistent with what I believe Bohr and CI assert.

Depends on what you mean by "in all these states".  It can certainly have a component in "all these states", but not be in any one of them.

This would seem to dispel a current deep seated myth about CM. Do you understand and agree with my point? AG

On another issue, whether it's legitimate to write such a superposition in terms of eigenstates that cannot presently be measured. I think it is, because any ray in a Hilbert space can so written (that is, any pure state) and such eigenstates MIGHT be measurement with some advanced technology or concepts. So, mathematically, such states can be written regardless of whether the superposed eigenstates are presently measureable. AG

Sure; which eigenstates can be measured is a problem of technology.

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 9:22:29 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote:

On 2/8/2021 7:50 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

More important, I don't think your comment relates to what I wrote immediately above in RED -- which is consistent with Bohr's view that a system is NOT in any specific eigenstate before measurement

I don't know the quote from Bohr, but I suspect it's leaving out the context that the system is not in an eigenstate of the variable measured before it is measured.  That just means the state NE is not North or East before you measure with your North-or-East instrument.

Brent

I wasn't quoting Bohr, but I assume that Bohr (and the CI) assert, that a system in a superposition of states is NOT in any of the eigenstates of the superposition "of the variable measured before it is measured".

What is your idea of not being in any eigenstates of the superpositon?   It the state if of a silver atom spin is LEFT it is not in an eigenstate of UP or DN because if you measure it in the UP/DN basis you'll get half UP and half DN.  But it is in a superposition of |UP>+|DN>

IOW, before measurement, the system is NOT objectively in any states of the variable being measured; aka no objective properties prior to measurement. But this flies directly in the face of the repeated claim by the usual suspects, professional and otherwise, that the system is in ALL states simultaneously of the eigenstates in the superposition even though these eigenstates each have probabilities LESS than 100%.

You're confounding "being in an eigenstate" with "having a component is different eigenstates simultaneously".

If you go to 5:15 in this video,  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTXTPe3wahc&t=7s , posted by Clark, the presenter explains the current interpretation of superposition, which I strongly object to. Maybe my argument was confused by my reference to eigenstates which spans some superposition. What I object to is the view that a system in a superposition is simultaneously in all states in its sum, which I called "components" (standard terminology?), which contradicts the CI that there are no preexisting states of a quantum system before measurement. Clark and others adhere to the former view which I see as ridiculous, in part because the mathematics just says there's less than 100% probability of being in any of these states before measurement. Can a system really BE in a state with less than 100% probability? AG

Consequently, it's more logical -- indeed MUCH more logical -- to assume that the system is NOT simultaneously in all these states, and is indeed in NONE of them before measurement, which is consistent with what I believe Bohr and CI assert.

Depends on what you mean by "in all these states".  It can certainly have a component in "all these states", but not be in any one of them.

This would seem to dispel a current deep seated myth about CM. Do you understand and agree with my point? AG

Sorry; I meant CI, not CM. AG 

On another issue, whether it's legitimate to write such a superposition in terms of eigenstates that cannot presently be measured. I think it is, because any ray in a Hilbert space can so written (that is, any pure state) and such eigenstates MIGHT be measurable (note correction) with some advanced technology or concepts. So, mathematically, such states can be written regardless of whether the superposed eigenstates are presently measurable. AG

[Brent Meeker]

On 2/8/2021 9:31 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 9:22:29 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote:

On 2/8/2021 7:50 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

More important, I don't think your comment relates to what I wrote immediately above in RED -- which is consistent with Bohr's view that a system is NOT in any specific eigenstate before measurement

I don't know the quote from Bohr, but I suspect it's leaving out the context that the system is not in an eigenstate of the variable measured before it is measured.  That just means the state NE is not North or East before you measure with your North-or-East instrument.

Brent

I wasn't quoting Bohr, but I assume that Bohr (and the CI) assert, that a system in a superposition of states is NOT in any of the eigenstates of the superposition "of the variable measured before it is measured".

What is your idea of not being in any eigenstates of the superpositon?   It the state if of a silver atom spin is LEFT it is not in an eigenstate of UP or DN because if you measure it in the UP/DN basis you'll get half UP and half DN.  But it is in a superposition of |UP>+|DN>

IOW, before measurement, the system is NOT objectively in any states of the variable being measured; aka no objective properties prior to measurement. But this flies directly in the face of the repeated claim by the usual suspects, professional and otherwise, that the system is in ALL states simultaneously of the eigenstates in the superposition even though these eigenstates each have probabilities LESS than 100%.

You're confounding "being in an eigenstate" with "having a component is different eigenstates simultaneously".

If you go to 5:15 in this video,  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTXTPe3wahc&t=7s , posted by Clark, the presenter explains the current interpretation of superposition, which I strongly object to. Maybe my argument was confused by my reference to eigenstates which spans some superposition. What I object to is the view that a system in a superposition is simultaneously in all states in its sum, which I called "components" (standard terminology?), which contradicts the CI that there are no preexisting states of a quantum system before measurement.

They can't be regarded a pre-existing states.  In silver atom SG example the pre-existing state is know by preparation to be UP, so the LEFT and RIGHT states are not pre-existing (except as possibilities).

Clark and others adhere to the former view which I see as ridiculous, in part because the mathematics just says there's less than 100% probability of being in any of these states before measurement. Can a system really BE in a state with less than 100% probability? AG

That appears to be a semantic question about the usage of the term "be in a state".   The math says that the state vector can be described in terms to the components of any set of basis states, in which case it will in general  have non-zero components from many or all of those basis states....just like a 3-vector in Cartesian coordinates can have x, y, z components and there are infinitely many ways of choosing x, y, and z.  If you choose them just right the 3-vector may be (0,0,1) and be a z-state eigenvector.

Brent

[John Clark]

On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 7:12 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Consider a system with two possible states with probabilities 30% and 70% before measurement.

OK, then if there were 10 observers 3 would see X and 7 would see Y.

 

> I would agree that the system is in both states simultaneously IF the probabilities were 100% for each.

Then everybody would see an interference pattern and everybody would not see it interference pattern. Perhaps I'm mistaken but something doesn't seem quite right here.  

> Concerning the convention for PE, if one moves a test mass from R1 to R2 in a central gravity field, where R1 < R2, aren't we calculating the work done against the field? Yes or No?

Yes, an external force of some sort would be required for that to happen, so that must be uphill.

> We can call this work negative or positive. Do you agree

Yes, you can call gravitational potential energy positive if you like, but then to be consistent you'd have to call Kinetic energy negative, and moving your test particle would still require an external force, it will still be uphill. 

 

> the choice is just a convention? This cannot effect conservation of energy, which is an empirical result,

Exactly, all the arguments I gave would be exactly the same, everytime I used the word "positive" or "negative" just change the word positive to negative and negative to positive.

John K Clark     See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

.

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, February 9, 2021 at 12:13:37 AM UTC-7 Brent wrote:

On 2/8/2021 9:31 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 9:22:29 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote:

On 2/8/2021 7:50 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

More important, I don't think your comment relates to what I wrote immediately above in RED -- which is consistent with Bohr's view that a system is NOT in any specific eigenstate before measurement

I don't know the quote from Bohr, but I suspect it's leaving out the context that the system is not in an eigenstate of the variable measured before it is measured.  That just means the state NE is not North or East before you measure with your North-or-East instrument.

Brent

I wasn't quoting Bohr, but I assume that Bohr (and the CI) assert, that a system in a superposition of states is NOT in any of the eigenstates of the superposition "of the variable measured before it is measured".

What is your idea of not being in any eigenstates of the superpositon?   It the state if of a silver atom spin is LEFT it is not in an eigenstate of UP or DN because if you measure it in the UP/DN basis you'll get half UP and half DN.  But it is in a superposition of |UP>+|DN>

IOW, before measurement, the system is NOT objectively in any states of the variable being measured; aka no objective properties prior to measurement. But this flies directly in the face of the repeated claim by the usual suspects, professional and otherwise, that the system is in ALL states simultaneously of the eigenstates in the superposition even though these eigenstates each have probabilities LESS than 100%.

You're confounding "being in an eigenstate" with "having a component is different eigenstates simultaneously".

If you go to 5:15 in this video,  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTXTPe3wahc&t=7s , posted by Clark, the presenter explains the current interpretation of superposition, which I strongly object to. Maybe my argument was confused by my reference to eigenstates which spans some superposition. What I object to is the view that a system in a superposition is simultaneously in all states in its sum, which I called "components" (standard terminology?), which contradicts the CI that there are no preexisting states of a quantum system before measurement.

They can't be regarded a pre-existing states.  In silver atom SG example the pre-existing state is know by preparation to be UP, so the LEFT and RIGHT states are not pre-existing (except as possibilities).

I dunno. I dunno if what you write above clarifies or confuses the issue. And I admit I am unclear about spin state superpositions. But I do know that a key assertion of QM is that a system before measurement has no pre-existing property, or value, or state. Wasn't this Bohr's answer to the EPR paper or paradox? And what is a superposition? Isn't it a solution of Schroedinger's equation for a particular system which can be decomposed into sums of components, or elements of a Hilbert space? The video presenter claims superposition implies that the system is simultaneously in all component states, and uses the double slit experiment to "prove" his claim by noting the interference pattern. But isn't this what we would expect if matter has wave properties according to DeBroglie? That is, the electron, or whatever, goes through both slits since when unobserved it behaves like a wave. In summary, the presenter's proof has no merit IMO. It doesn't put the weird interpretation of superposition on firm ground as he claims. AG 

Clark and others adhere to the former view which I see as ridiculous, in part because the mathematics just says there's less than 100% probability of being in any of these states before measurement. Can a system really BE in a state with less than 100% probability? AG

That appears to be a semantic question about the usage of the term "be in a state".   The math says that the state vector can be described in terms to the components of any set of basis states, in which case it will in general  have non-zero components from many or all of those basis states....just like a 3-vector in Cartesian coordinates can have x, y, z components and there are infinitely many ways of choosing x, y, and z.  If you choose them just right the 3-vector may be (0,0,1) and be a z-state eigenvector.

Then the Many Worlds of the MWI are undefined. It depends on the basis chosen, which could represent huge distinct sets of basis vectors. AG

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, February 9, 2021 at 3:09:33 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 7:12 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Consider a system with two possible states with probabilities 30% and 70% before measurement.

OK, then if there were 10 observers 3 would see X and 7 would see Y.

I said BEFORE MEASUREMENT! AG

Try this. For a test mass m, and a gravitating mass M at rest, calculate the PE from R = 0 to R = inf, and compare that to the rest mass of the gravitating mass. Do you get precisely zero? How do you handle the fact that the potential used in the calculation blows up at R = 0?  AG

Incidentally, the Wiki link you posted on the Zero Energy Universe says the theory remains unproven. AG

[John Clark]

On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 5:56 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Consider a system with two possible states with probabilities 30% and 70% before measurement.

>> OK, then if there were 10 observers 3 would see X and 7 would see Y.

> I said BEFORE MEASUREMENT! AG

What about measurement?!

> Try this. For a test mass m, and a gravitating mass M at rest, calculate the PE from R = 0 to R = inf, and compare that to the rest mass of the gravitating mass. Do you get precisely zero? How do you handle the fact that the potential used in the calculation blows up at R = 0?  AG

The potential energy is 0 - G*M^2)/R , so the larger R gets the closer it comes to zero.

> Incidentally, the Wiki link you posted on the Zero Energy Universe says the theory remains unproven. AG

Of course the idea is unproven, nobody is sure what Dark Energy is, all I'm saying is it's logically consistent and plausible. It could be that Dark Energy is not the result of the intrinsic energy of empty space at all but it is caused by something else called "Quintessence", a hypothetical scalar field that unlike vacuum energy can change in strength over time and could be either repulsive or attractive. If it turns out the Quintessence is real then the final fate of the universe is either the Big Rip, if it's repulsive force increases, or the Big Crunch, if it's repulsive effect changes to attractive.

John K Clark     See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

.

[Philip Benjamin]

[Philip Benjamin]

     Artificial puzzles lead to artificial imaginative solutions. Probabilities are not necessarily possibilities.  These have no physical reality of existence and not subject to the logical analysis of aseity or origins or meanings of what is already established as existents by actual observations and measurements. Freshman science classes  SHOULD be given such tasks and be left to themselves for reaching different conclusions in a TOLERANTLY, co-existing attitude and atmosphere. Scientists as all other humans have the birthright to believe and propose any ontological assumptions, but they have no TAO Right or Divine Right of New Age Right to introduce and corrupt true science with their private beliefs brought in through the backdoors.

     Wave-likeness = Waviness is an artificially created puzzle. That Corpuscular photons have no mass is another artificial conundrum. Particles may BEHAVE as waves. Also, a mass at an indeterminate decimal place is still mass, though negligible for all practical and mathematical purposes.  The goddess of Science is imperfect, incomplete, imprecise and indeterminate. There is no place for bigotry of any kind in any branch of the academia or the media which has become the most powerful Fourth Estate—the King Maker of today.       

     Philip Benjamin

 

'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com>  Monday, February 8, 2021 4:05 PM To: everyth...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why  On 2/8/2021 12:40 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 1:25:47 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote: On 2/8/2021 4:12 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 4:13:38 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 7:25 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

>> A hydroelectric dam producing electricity and the accelerating expansion of the universe caused by the intrinsic energy of empty space,  both convert negative gravitational potential energy into positive kinetic energy that can do work, in the first case by falling inward and in the second case by falling outward. And I explained previously to you exactly why that is so. …..

 

> The flaw in your analysis is that the "negative" in PE is a convention, not a law of physics.

Without that "convention" there would be no law of conservation of energy at all.  

 

>There is no way to magically change negative energy (what the hell is that?)

 

I know a guy who can answer that question, ask Isaac Newton, he knew what negative gravitational potential energy was over 300 years ago. Albert Einstein could also answer your question.  

 

> to positive energy. AG 

 

And tell that to the engineers who make hydroelectric dams.

 

> You're just reaching a conclusion which pleases you about total energy of the universe being exactly zero.

 

It's not just me, the idea that the total energy in the universe is zero also pleased people like Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman and Alan Guth who invented the idea of cosmic inflation. And the evidence is piling up that it's probably true. 

Zero-energy universe

 

> You're just assuming the dark energy fills the gap, after the total energy of what we can observe is estimated. And I note that you never referenced dark energy or matter in your original message.

 

That is flat out untrue, and as far as this argument is concerned it makes no difference if the matter in the universe is composed of Dark Matter or normal everyday Baryonic Matter because gravity treats both of them exactly the same way; and that's why Dark Energy does not have the word "matter" in it, gravity treats it differently. When a cloud of Baryonic Matter expands it does not get more massive, but when a cloud of Dark Energy expands it does, assuming that a  property of space is for it to have a residual energy, and it's looking increasingly likely that it does.

 

> All I am really asserting is that we can just dispense with the idea that a system can be in multiple different states simultaneously,

 

Sure you can dispense with that, if you don't mind ignoring empirical evidence and abandoning the scientific method in general.  

 

Consider a system with two possible states with probabilities 30% and 70% before measurement. I would agree that the system is in both states simultaneously IF the probabilities were 100% for each. But that violates one of the postulates of frequentist probability. So which do you think is more logical; that in the 30%/70% case the system is in both states simultaneously, or in neither state? AG

You don't seem to understand Hilbert space is just a special case of vector spaces.  If your state is having a momentum on a  heading of 45deg, then it's a superposition of |North>+|East>.  "Superposition" is only relative to some basis.  We right things that way when we have instruments that measure "North" and "East", but none that measure NE.

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, February 9, 2021 at 6:18:54 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 5:56 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Consider a system with two possible states with probabilities 30% and 70% before measurement.

>> OK, then if there were 10 observers 3 would see X and 7 would see Y.

> I said BEFORE MEASUREMENT! AG

What about measurement?!

You don't "see" anything prior to measurement. AG 

> Try this. For a test mass m, and a gravitating mass M at rest, calculate the PE from R = 0 to R = inf, and compare that to the rest mass of the gravitating mass. Do you get precisely zero? How do you handle the fact that the potential used in the calculation blows up at R = 0?  AG

The potential energy is 0 - G*M^2)/R , so the larger R gets the closer it comes to zero.

Since the potential function goes as 1/R, how do you get 0 at R = 0? AG 

> Incidentally, the Wiki link you posted on the Zero Energy Universe says the theory remains unproven. AG

Of course the idea is unproven, nobody is sure what Dark Energy is, all I'm saying is it's logically consistent and plausible.

Not what you said. You presented the theory as if were fact. AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, February 9, 2021 at 8:32:56 AM UTC-7 medinuclear wrote:

[Philip Benjamin]

     Artificial puzzles lead to artificial imaginative solutions. Probabilities are not necessarily possibilities.

Only a probability of zero is impossible. AG

[Brent Meeker]

On 2/9/2021 2:46 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Tuesday, February 9, 2021 at 12:13:37 AM UTC-7 Brent wrote:

On 2/8/2021 9:31 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 9:22:29 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote:

On 2/8/2021 7:50 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

More important, I don't think your comment relates to what I wrote immediately above in RED -- which is consistent with Bohr's view that a system is NOT in any specific eigenstate before measurement

I don't know the quote from Bohr, but I suspect it's leaving out the context that the system is not in an eigenstate of the variable measured before it is measured.  That just means the state NE is not North or East before you measure with your North-or-East instrument.

Brent

I wasn't quoting Bohr, but I assume that Bohr (and the CI) assert, that a system in a superposition of states is NOT in any of the eigenstates of the superposition "of the variable measured before it is measured".

What is your idea of not being in any eigenstates of the superpositon?   It the state if of a silver atom spin is LEFT it is not in an eigenstate of UP or DN because if you measure it in the UP/DN basis you'll get half UP and half DN.  But it is in a superposition of |UP>+|DN>

IOW, before measurement, the system is NOT objectively in any states of the variable being measured; aka no objective properties prior to measurement. But this flies directly in the face of the repeated claim by the usual suspects, professional and otherwise, that the system is in ALL states simultaneously of the eigenstates in the superposition even though these eigenstates each have probabilities LESS than 100%.

You're confounding "being in an eigenstate" with "having a component is different eigenstates simultaneously".

If you go to 5:15 in this video,  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTXTPe3wahc&t=7s , posted by Clark, the presenter explains the current interpretation of superposition, which I strongly object to. Maybe my argument was confused by my reference to eigenstates which spans some superposition. What I object to is the view that a system in a superposition is simultaneously in all states in its sum, which I called "components" (standard terminology?), which contradicts the CI that there are no preexisting states of a quantum system before measurement.

They can't be regarded a pre-existing states.  In silver atom SG example the pre-existing state is know by preparation to be UP, so the LEFT and RIGHT states are not pre-existing (except as possibilities).

I dunno. I dunno if what you write above clarifies or confuses the issue. And I admit I am unclear about spin state superpositions. But I do know that a key assertion of QM is that a system before measurement has no pre-existing property, or value, or state.

No, you don't know that.  To know means to have a true belief based on evidence.

Wasn't this Bohr's answer to the EPR paper or paradox? And what is a superposition? Isn't it a solution of Schroedinger's equation for a particular system which can be decomposed into sums of components, or elements of a Hilbert space?

Hilbert space is a kind of vector space.  Vectors can always be expressed in terms of different basis vectors.

The video presenter claims superposition implies that the system is simultaneously in all component states, and uses the double slit experiment to "prove" his claim by noting the interference pattern. But isn't this what we would expect if matter has wave properties according to DeBroglie? That is, the electron, or whatever, goes through both slits since when unobserved it behaves like a wave. In summary, the presenter's proof has no merit IMO. It doesn't put the weird interpretation of superposition on firm ground as he claims. AG

Feynman said any good physicists knows five different mathematics to describe the same physics.

Clark and others adhere to the former view which I see as ridiculous, in part because the mathematics just says there's less than 100% probability of being in any of these states before measurement. Can a system really BE in a state with less than 100% probability? AG

That appears to be a semantic question about the usage of the term "be in a state".   The math says that the state vector can be described in terms to the components of any set of basis states, in which case it will in general  have non-zero components from many or all of those basis states....just like a 3-vector in Cartesian coordinates can have x, y, z components and there are infinitely many ways of choosing x, y, and z.  If you choose them just right the 3-vector may be (0,0,1) and be a z-state eigenvector.

Then the Many Worlds of the MWI are undefined. It depends on the basis chosen, which could represent huge distinct sets of basis vectors. AG

One of the elements of the quantum measurement problem is why the "worlds" are described in the same basis (usually position basis).  Zurek proposes a solution he calls einselection in which only some states are stable against entanglement with the environment and so "worlds" can only exist in (approximately) those states.

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, February 9, 2021 at 11:31:31 AM UTC-7 Brent wrote:

On 2/9/2021 2:46 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Tuesday, February 9, 2021 at 12:13:37 AM UTC-7 Brent wrote:

On 2/8/2021 9:31 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 9:22:29 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote:

On 2/8/2021 7:50 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

More important, I don't think your comment relates to what I wrote immediately above in RED -- which is consistent with Bohr's view that a system is NOT in any specific eigenstate before measurement

I don't know the quote from Bohr, but I suspect it's leaving out the context that the system is not in an eigenstate of the variable measured before it is measured.  That just means the state NE is not North or East before you measure with your North-or-East instrument.

Brent

I wasn't quoting Bohr, but I assume that Bohr (and the CI) assert, that a system in a superposition of states is NOT in any of the eigenstates of the superposition "of the variable measured before it is measured".

What is your idea of not being in any eigenstates of the superpositon?   It the state if of a silver atom spin is LEFT it is not in an eigenstate of UP or DN because if you measure it in the UP/DN basis you'll get half UP and half DN.  But it is in a superposition of |UP>+|DN>

IOW, before measurement, the system is NOT objectively in any states of the variable being measured; aka no objective properties prior to measurement. But this flies directly in the face of the repeated claim by the usual suspects, professional and otherwise, that the system is in ALL states simultaneously of the eigenstates in the superposition even though these eigenstates each have probabilities LESS than 100%.

You're confounding "being in an eigenstate" with "having a component is different eigenstates simultaneously".

If you go to 5:15 in this video,  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTXTPe3wahc&t=7s , posted by Clark, the presenter explains the current interpretation of superposition, which I strongly object to. Maybe my argument was confused by my reference to eigenstates which spans some superposition. What I object to is the view that a system in a superposition is simultaneously in all states in its sum, which I called "components" (standard terminology?), which contradicts the CI that there are no preexisting states of a quantum system before measurement.

They can't be regarded a pre-existing states.  In silver atom SG example the pre-existing state is know by preparation to be UP, so the LEFT and RIGHT states are not pre-existing (except as possibilities).

I dunno. I dunno if what you write above clarifies or confuses the issue. And I admit I am unclear about spin state superpositions. But I do know that a key assertion of QM is that a system before measurement has no pre-existing property, or value, or state.

No, you don't know that.  To know means to have a true belief based on evidence.

But I DO have evidence and so do you; Bell experiments! They show no pre-existing property, or value, or state exists before the measurement. Otherwise local realism would be confirmed, instead of failing. AG 

Wasn't this Bohr's answer to the EPR paper or paradox? And what is a superposition? Isn't it a solution of Schroedinger's equation for a particular system which can be decomposed into sums of components, or elements of a Hilbert space?

Hilbert space is a kind of vector space.  Vectors can always be expressed in terms of different basis vectors.

I've refreshed my understanding of Hilbert spaces. So, if you really believe your second sentence above, doesn't it make the idea many worlds, whose existence depends on the selection of basis, ambiguous (to say the least)? AG 

The video presenter claims superposition implies that the system is simultaneously in all component states, and uses the double slit experiment to "prove" his claim by noting the interference pattern. But isn't this what we would expect if matter has wave properties according to DeBroglie? That is, the electron, or whatever, goes through both slits since when unobserved it behaves like a wave. In summary, the presenter's proof has no merit IMO. It doesn't put the weird interpretation of superposition on firm ground as he claims. AG

Feynman said any good physicists knows five different mathematics to describe the same physics.

I seriously appreciate Feynman. But the presenter's interpretation of interference in double slit experiment completely ignores DeBroglie, which seems a far superior explanation than claiming a PARTICLE moves through BOTH slits (and hence is in both slit states simultaneously). Ultimately, I suppose, it's a matter of taste, and IMO the presenter is throwing a very hard problem under the rug, in favor of a pseudo solution. AG 

[Brent Meeker]

On 2/9/2021 7:55 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

Hilbert space is a kind of vector space.  Vectors can always be expressed in terms of different basis vectors.

I've refreshed my understanding of Hilbert spaces. So, if you really believe your second sentence above, doesn't it make the idea many worlds, whose existence depends on the selection of basis, ambiguous (to say the least)? AG 

Many worlds does not depend on an arbitrary selection of basis by us.  It depends on there being some basis selected by nature as the one stable against environmental variations, "pointer basis".  Presumably this is selected by the dynamics of the Schroedinger equation although that hasn't been worked out.  So "selected" means two different things in those cases.

Bent

[John Clark]

On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 10:55 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But I DO have evidence and so do you; Bell experiments! They show no pre-existing property, or value, or state exists before the measurement. Otherwise local realism would be confirmed, instead of failing. AG 

And that is consistent with Many Worlds, for example before it is measured a photon is not in one unique polarization, it is an every polarization, and  any person who eventually makes a measurement of it is in every possible state too; name any polarization and there is an observer who saw it.  

[Alan Grayson]

Another triumph for Trump physics. Can you guarantee a toilet for every observer? AG 

[John Clark]

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 4:18 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> But I DO have evidence and so do you; Bell experiments! They show no pre-existing property, or value, or state exists before the measurement. Otherwise local realism would be confirmed, instead of failing. AG 

>> And that is consistent with Many Worlds, for example before it is measured a photon is not in one unique polarization, it is an every polarization, and  any person who eventually makes a measurement of it is in every possible state too; name any polarization and there is an observer who saw it.  

> Another triumph for Trump physics.

WOW, comparing someone known for disliking Trump to Trump, never heard that one before! Well... actually I have .... maybe it's time to dream up a new insult, that one is getting a bit stale. Of course it would be even better if you could find a coherent logical counter argument, but I know that's well beyond you.  

[Philip Benjamin]

[Philip Benjamin] 

Trump Physics? What is that?

    A particle in motion may behave LIKE wave. Is there a wave that behaves like particle? If it does it is a particle of negligible or unobservable or unmeasurable mass. The entire CONUNDRUMS of modern physics are pure imaginative solutions that follow from artificially created paradoxes and puzzles such as wave-likeness = waviness.

     There is no such thing as Trump physics, which simply shows hatred for 94+ million voters, translated into Trump hatred;  but here is  Bohr physics and Everett physics based on private belief systems arising in an atavistically  un-awakened consciousness.  Western scientists before these learned civilized “CopenPagan” scientists with kundalini/reptilian consciousness had the advantage of an awakened Augustinian ethos that pulled the West away from the dead Greco-Roman culture and superstitions. Augustine could baptize the entire Platonism and sconce it to the Athenian Mars Hill discourse of Rabbi Saul of Tarsus (Acts 17 th Chapter).

      If the unseen consciousness has to be brought into rational science the unseen bio dark-matter (of negligible mass) and its chemistry need to be considered as viable for the co-creation of the visible & invisible twins from the moment of conception.

       Philip Benjamin     

 

John K Clark     See what's on my new list at  Extropolis.

[Philip Benjamin]

From: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 4:05 PM To: everyth...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why

[Philip Benjamin]

There are only two observable parallel worlds:

1. Kundalini/reptilian Pagan world of un-awakened consciousness.  2 . Non-pagan world of quickened consciousness.

The West in general was a product of Augustinian transformation. America in particular is the result of the historical and historic “Two Great Awakenings”. Philip Benjamin     

 

[Philip Benjamin]

Trump Physics? What is that?

    A particle in motion may behave LIKE wave. Is there a wave that behaves like particle? If it does, it is a particle of negligible or unobservable or unmeasurable mass. The entire CONUNDRUMS of modern physics are pure imaginative solutions that follow from artificially created paradoxes and puzzles such as wave-likeness = waviness.

     There is no such thing as Trump physics, which simply shows virulent hatred for 74+ million voters, translated into Trump hatred;  but here is  Bohr physics and Everett physics based on private belief systems arising in an atavistically  un-awakened consciousness.  Western scientists before these learned civilized “CopenPagan” scientists with kundalini/reptilian consciousness had the advantage of an awakened Augustinian ethos (https://www.midwestaugustinians.org/conversion-of-st-augustine) that pulled the West away from the dead Greco-Roman culture and superstitions. Augustine could baptize the entire Platonism and sconce it to the Athenian Mars Hill discourse of Rabbi Saul of Tarsus (Acts 17 th Chapter).

      If the unseen consciousness has to be brought into rational science the unseen bio dark-matter (of negligible mass) and its chemistry need to be considered as viable for the co-creation of the visible & invisible twins from the moment of conception.

      

From: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com>  Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 4:05 PM To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why

 

On 2/8/2021 12:40 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

 

On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 1:25:47 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote:

 

On 2/8/2021 4:12 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

 

On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 4:13:38 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 7:25 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

>> A hydroelectric dam producing electricity and the accelerating expansion of the universe caused by the intrinsic energy of empty space,  both convert negative gravitational potential energy into positive kinetic energy that can do work, in the first case by falling inward and in the second case by falling outward. And I explained previously to you exactly why that is so. And that is no BS.

 

> The flaw in your analysis is that the "negative" in PE is a convention, not a law of physics.

 

Without that "convention" there would be no law of conservation of energy at all.  

 

>There is no way to magically change negative energy (what the hell is that?)

 

I know a guy who can answer that question, ask Isaac Newton, he knew what negative gravitational potential energy was over 300 years ago. Albert Einstein could also answer your question.  

 

> to positive energy. AG 

.

[Alan Grayson]

The virtue of Trump physics is that you can have your cake and eat it. In the video you posted, the presenter affirms superposition to mean a system can be, and indeed is, in more than one state simultaneously. Presumably, this also affirms the MWI. Then when I show the fallacy of his logic, and show that superposition implies the opposite -- that a system described by a superposed sum of states is in NONE of these states simultaneously -- you are quick to suggest that this situation is ALSO consistent with the MWI. So all I can say is that once again Trump physics prevails, as always. Life is good. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

Maybe we can agree on one thing; that the video presenter is mistaken to assert that in a superposition, the system is in ALL component states of the sum simultaneously. It's analogous to the horse race thought experiment, where each horse has some probability of winning as the race progresses, but before the race ends no horse has 100% probability of winning. AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, February 10, 2021 at 2:07:37 PM UTC-7 medinuclear wrote:

From: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 4:05 PM To: everyth...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why

[Philip Benjamin]

There are only two observable parallel worlds:

1. Kundalini/reptilian Pagan world of un-awakened consciousness.  2 . Non-pagan world of quickened consciousness.

The West in general was a product of Augustinian transformation. America in particular is the result of the historical and historic “Two Great Awakenings”. Philip Benjamin     

 

[Philip Benjamin]

Trump Physics? What is that?

    A particle in motion may behave LIKE wave. Is there a wave that behaves like particle? If it does, it is a particle of negligible or unobservable or unmeasurable mass. The entire CONUNDRUMS of modern physics are pure imaginative solutions that follow from artificially created paradoxes and puzzles such as wave-likeness = waviness.

     There is no such thing as Trump physics, which simply shows virulent hatred for 74+ million voters, translated into Trump hatred;

FWIW, Trump is a living piece of $hit, a miserable excuse for a human being, and his devotees are fools who have fallen in love with his kool aid. AG 

[John Clark]

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 9:12 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Another triumph for Trump physics.

>> WOW, comparing someone known for disliking Trump to Trump, never heard that one before! Well... actually I have .... maybe it's time to dream up a new insult, that one is getting a bit stale. Of course it would be even better if you could find a coherent logical counter argument, but I know that's well beyond you.  

> The virtue of Trump physics is [...]

Trump is stale, sooo last year, you really need to find a new insult more in keeping with the gravitas of your argument. May I suggest "Mr.Poopoo face"? But don't make the same mistake you made with Trump, don't use it more than 19 or 20 times because any insult loses its power with overuse.

[John Clark]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 3:39 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Maybe we can agree on one thing; that the video presenter is mistaken to assert that in a superposition, the system is in ALL component states of the sum simultaneously. It's analogous to the horse race thought experiment, where each horse has some probability of winning as the race progresses, but before the race ends no horse has 100% probability of winning. AG

No, we don't agree on that.

> each horse has some probability of winning as the race progresses, but before the race ends no horse has 100% probability of winning. AG

If Many Worlds is correct then every horse can be in every state not forbidden by the laws of physics, that means each horse has a 100% chance of winning and a 100% chance of losing from the Multiverse point of view. And every observer can also be in every state not forbidden by the laws of physics, so there is a version of "you" that saw the horse win the race and a version of "you" that saw that horse come in dead last.  

And yes that is very very odd, but there's no reason the universe can't be very very odd, it just can't be self contradictory, and Many Worlds is not. But yes it would have been better if somebody could come up with a fundamental physical theory that was not very very odd, but experimental observation has now made it crystal clear that's not possible, it's just not the way the universe is. If you or I were God we could've done much better, but unfortunately we didn't get the job, that jerk Yahweh did.

> when I show the fallacy of his logic, and show that superposition implies the opposite -- that a system described by a superposed sum of states is in NONE of these states simultaneously [...]

You showed that? Well... That must've been some post! I'm sure it demonstrated the same level of intelligence that I've seen in your other posts but for some reason I failed to receive it, maybe there's something wrong with the Email program on my computer.  

John K Clark      See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

.

[Alan Grayson]

My IQ was measured at 146. But as my mother never tired of reminding me; my sister had a higher IQ; 156. So there must have been something wrong with MY test. I demonstrated it by making the simple observation that no observer or system can be in a state with, say, a 30% or 70% probability. I see the Alzheimer's is kicking in again, or is it Trumpism? I could and would swear that earlier you affirmed this superposition interpretation, with the usual rationalization, where NO states could be simultaneously manifested. But now you are very comfortable with All states being simultaneously manifested. This surely sounds contradictory, of is it for Many World devotees there's no discrimination to be expected? AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 4:43:17 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 3:39 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Maybe we can agree on one thing; that the video presenter is mistaken to assert that in a superposition, the system is in ALL component states of the sum simultaneously. It's analogous to the horse race thought experiment, where each horse has some probability of winning as the race progresses, but before the race ends no horse has 100% probability of winning. AG

No, we don't agree on that.

> each horse has some probability of winning as the race progresses, but before the race ends no horse has 100% probability of winning. AG

If Many Worlds is correct then every horse can be in every state not forbidden by the laws of physics, that means each horse has a 100% chance of winning and a 100% chance of losing from the Multiverse point of view. 

That would be true if the horses are identical and only at the beginning of the race. But more important, as the race progresses, the likelihood of any particular horse winning changes. In general, we'd observe (or possibly assign) different probabilities for different horses depending on their varying positions as the race progressed. But my main point is that when any probability is not 100% as the race progresses, as in the 30/70% scenario for some quantum system, it makes no sense to say a horse, or quantum system, is IN that particular state. You can still affirm the MWI under this scenario, but it would be much more logical than metastasizing worlds without end. We can still have odd universes, but what you're claiming is beyond the pale IMO. AG

[John Clark]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 8:03 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> My IQ was measured at 146. But as my mother never tired of reminding me; my sister had a higher IQ; 156.

Was your sister also a Carl Sagan co-author? 

> I demonstrated it by making the simple observation that no observer or system can be in a state with, say, a 30% or 70% probability.

But 10 observers all named Alan Grayson could be all identical except that 7 of the Alan Graysons see the coin land heads and 3 of the Alan Graysons see the coin land tails.  And all the Alan Graysons could be part of the same quantum wave function.

< I see the Alzheimer's is kicking in again, or is it Trumpism?

I'd stick with the Alzheimer's insult for now if I were you Mr. Ninety Year old Carl Sagan Co-Author, it's only the second time you've used it but you've used the Trump  at least 10 times and it's time for something new. 

 

> This surely sounds contradictory,

 Perhaps if your IQ was a little higher, maybe 156 like your sister, it would not sound so contradictory to you.

John K Clark      See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

.

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 6:37:02 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 8:03 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> My IQ was measured at 146. But as my mother never tired of reminding me; my sister had a higher IQ; 156.

Was your sister also a Carl Sagan co-author? 

No, but David Morrison was one of the co-authors of one of those two papers. At that time, he was working on his Ph'D at Harvard under Sagan. Look him up on Wiki. My name here is a pseudonym. Can't you recall? I told you that. Maybe you're a hybrid between a Trumper (how you handle facts), and an Alzheimer sufferer in the failure of your memory. AG

> I demonstrated it by making the simple observation that no observer or system can be in a state with, say, a 30% or 70% probability.

But 10 observers all named Alan Grayson could be all identical except that 7 of the Alan Graysons see the coin land heads and 3 of the Alan Graysons see the coin land tails.  And all the Alan Graysons could be part of the same quantum wave function.

When we use probability theory or any theory, we should start with what the theory originally posits. So one cannot be IN a state with less than 100% probability, which only occurs when we measure something. AG

< I see the Alzheimer's is kicking in again, or is it Trumpism?

I'd stick with the Alzheimer's insult for now if I were you Mr. Ninety Year old Carl Sagan Co-Author, it's only the second time you've used it but you've used the Trump  at least 10 times and it's time for something new. 

I was just 80, not that that's pertinent to anything here. AG 

[John Clark]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 8:33 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> If Many Worlds is correct then every horse can be in every state not forbidden by the laws of physics, that means each horse has a 100% chance of winning and a 100% chance of losing from the Multiverse point of view. 

> That would be true if the horses are identical and only at the beginning of the race. But more important, as the race progresses, the likelihood of any particular horse winning changes.

If Many Worlds is correct then the universe and all the observers in it splits at least  5.4* 10^44 times a second (probably more, possibly infinitely more) and so the number of observers who see various things constantly changes.  

 

> In general, we'd observe (or possibly assign) different probabilities for different horses depending on their varying positions as the race progressed. But my main point is that when any probability is not 100% as the race progresses,

You keep talking about "probability" but what does that word really mean? If Many Worlds is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics then probability is not a part of the intrinsic nature of reality, probability would just be a measure of our ignorance. Probability allows us to make the best use of the limited information that we do have and find the best strategy to maximize our gains from a series of bets. But the sum total of reality (aka, the Multiverse) does not need probability because it is completely deterministic, at least if Many Worlds is true.

John K Clark      See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

,

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 7:02:53 AM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 8:33 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> If Many Worlds is correct then every horse can be in every state not forbidden by the laws of physics, that means each horse has a 100% chance of winning and a 100% chance of losing from the Multiverse point of view. 

> That would be true if the horses are identical and only at the beginning of the race. But more important, as the race progresses, the likelihood of any particular horse winning changes.

If Many Worlds is correct then the universe and all the observers in it splits at least  5.4* 10^44 times a second (probably more, possibly infinitely more) and so the number of observers who see various things constantly changes.  

 

> In general, we'd observe (or possibly assign) different probabilities for different horses depending on their varying positions as the race progressed. But my main point is that when any probability is not 100% as the race progresses,

You keep talking about "probability" but what does that word really mean?

In the frequentist theory of probability, the meaning is fairly self evident. It refers to the percent of some occurrence for an ensemble of measurements. There is some vagueness here which experts can resolve; for example, how large does the ensemble have to be for the percent to be applicable, and so forth. AG

If Many Worlds is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics then probability is not a part of the intrinsic nature of reality, probability would just be a measure of our ignorance. Probability allows us to make the best use of the limited information that we do have and find the best strategy to maximize our gains from a series of bets. But the sum total of reality (aka, the Multiverse) does not need probability because it is completely deterministic, at least if Many Worlds is true.

I am skeptical about absolute determinism. Given the HUP, we can never predict the evolution of any system with absolute precision.  AG

[John Clark]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 9:17 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> You keep talking about "probability" but what does that word really mean?

> In the frequentist theory of probability, the meaning is fairly self evident.

It's fairly self evident that the Earth cannot be moving around the sun, but it does so nevertheless. In physics the further we get, In both size and time, from our normal  everyday life the less accurate our intuition becomes because evolution just had no reason to make Quantum Mechanics seem intuitively obvious to us, we are too big and we move too slowly for quantum physics ability to help in getting our genes into the next generation.

> I am skeptical about absolute determinism. Given the HUP, we can never predict the evolution of any system with absolute precision.  AG

Schrodinger's wave equation is absolutely deterministic, and if Many Worlds is right so is the multiverse, The inhabitants of the third rock from the sun cannot make predictions that are always perfectly correct, but that is not a contradiction of a deterministic Multiverse

[Alan Grayson]

You fail to understand HUP. AG 

[John Clark]

>you fail to understand HUP. AG

And you fail to understand IHA.

John K Clark      See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

,

--
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/1aa13f29-712f-41ff-a559-76702675a484n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 2:57:21 PM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

>you fail to understand HUP. AG

And you fail to understand IHA.

Prior to the discovery of the HUP it was believed that unlimited precision of initial conditions was possible, depending only on the advance of technology. Now, with the HUP, we know this is not the case. Consequently, determinism is no longer a viable interpretation of what's possible with respect to accuracy of predictions. Even with h-bar in the statement of the HUP, the error predictions get inevitably larger as time progresses.  AG

[smitra]

Parallel worlds also exist for another reason. Unless God created the
universe right now and will annihilate it right now, the past and the
future exist. We say that the past existed in the past tense and that
the future will exist in the future tense, but we did not invent these
linguistic notions based on the results of rigorous scientific research.
There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for the past and the future
to not be as real as the present.

Even if we start by assuming that only the present moment is real and
make no assumptions a priori about the past or future, then
computationalism implies that the future is real, because the
information about the future and its further time evolution is contained
in the present moment. So, if you run the universe during the present
moment then you are also running the universe at a future moment, as the
two things are related by a unitary transform. In general, the present
contains not just one future but the set of all possible futures as
additional parallel worlds in the form of a superposition.

This is not true for the past, that's an artifact of the assumption that
the present is real. From only this we cannot derive that alternative
pasts that would have led to an alternative present moment are also
real. But it is, of course, very reasonable to make the assumption that
these parallel worlds are also real.

Saibal

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 10:35:27 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 2:57:21 PM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

>you fail to understand HUP. AG

And you fail to understand IHA.

Prior to the discovery of the HUP it was believed that unlimited precision of initial conditions was possible, depending only on the advance of technology. Now, with the HUP, we know this is not the case. Consequently, determinism is no longer a viable interpretation of what's possible with respect to accuracy of predictions. Even with h-bar in the statement of the HUP, the error predictions get inevitably larger as time progresses.  AG

It occurred to me that when solving Schroedinger's equation, one needs initial conditions. I haven't done this in a long while, but I think these initial conditions are also subject to the uncertainties implied by the HUP -- in which case, even if we're starting with a deterministic differential equation, the resulting solution, the wf, will also not conform to classical (pre-HUP) determinism. AG 

Turning to another point previously discussed, related to the video you posted (maybe on a different thread), namely the interpretation of superposition, specifically the apparent paradox of a system in simultaneous contradictory states before measurement, ISTM it's based on an obviously false interpretation of the double slit experiment. If you apply DeBroglie's insight that material particles have wave properties, why not just apply this to the double slit experiment, and conclude that particle waves go through BOTH slits and thus account for the observed interference patterns? If you assume what's NOT the case, that particles are NOT associated with waves, you run into big trouble. AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, February 13, 2021 at 6:05:28 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 10:35:27 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 2:57:21 PM UTC-7 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

>you fail to understand HUP. AG

And you fail to understand IHA.

Prior to the discovery of the HUP it was believed that unlimited precision of initial conditions was possible, depending only on the advance of technology. Now, with the HUP, we know this is not the case. Consequently, determinism is no longer a viable interpretation of what's possible with respect to accuracy of predictions. Even with h-bar in the statement of the HUP, the error predictions get inevitably larger as time progresses.  AG

It occurred to me that when solving Schroedinger's equation, one needs initial conditions. I haven't done this in a long while, but I think these initial conditions are also subject to the uncertainties implied by the HUP -- in which case, even if we're starting with a deterministic differential equation, the resulting solution, the wf, will also not conform to classical (pre-HUP) determinism. AG 

Turning to another point previously discussed, related to the video you posted (maybe on a different thread), namely the interpretation of superposition, specifically the apparent paradox of a system in simultaneous contradictory states before measurement, ISTM it's based on an obviously false interpretation of the double slit experiment. If you apply DeBroglie's insight that material particles have wave properties, why not just apply this to the double slit experiment, and conclude that particle waves go through BOTH slits and thus account for the observed interference patterns? If you assume what's NOT the case, that particles are NOT associated with waves, you run into big trouble. AG

Even if matter waves are ignored in the interpretation of superposition, a deep mystery remains; why do those waves in the double slit experiment always result in particle detection at the screen? I can't answer that question. However, by ignoring matter waves, the consequence is to add an unnecessary and unjustified second mystery to the original one. It's also confusing, apparently allowing Schroedinger's cat to be simultaneously alive and dead prior to the "measurement"  (when the box is opened). AG

[John Clark]

On  Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Prior to the discovery of the HUP it was believed that unlimited precision of initial conditions was possible, depending only on the advance of technology. Now, with the HUP, we know this is not the case.

You don't need infinite precision to state that an electron is spinning up or down and right or left,  it would only take two bits of information to do so, and yet we are unable to obtain those two bits; we can choose to determine with absolute certainty if the electron is spinning right or left but then we'd have no idea about the up or down spin, it would be completely 50-50; or we can determine with absolute certainty if the electron is spinning up or down but then we'd have no idea about the left or right spin. We can do one or the other but not both. Why?  Is it because there is some physical mechanism that prevents us from having both bits of information and thus making complete predictions impossible, or is it because until it is measured (whatever the hell that is) the electron simply doesn't have both properties? Many Worlds is a realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, it says particles always have a definite spin, regardless of if it is "observed" or not, in fact the electron has every spin not forbidden by the laws of physics, and the same thing is true for a position and momentum, and the change in energy over a time interval,  although Intelligent entities in any one branch of the multiverse may forever lack the ability to obtain all that information. Copenhagen is not a realistic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, it says these properties don't even exist until they are measured, and they can't give a precise or even approximate meaning to what they meant by "measured".

 

> Consequently, determinism is no longer a viable interpretation

We know from experiment that Bell's inequality is violated and Bell proved if it is violated then the universe cannot be:

1) Local

2) Deterministic 

3) Realistic,

At least one of those three things must be false.  However Many Worlds Insists that it is all 3. It can get away with that because Bell assumed the collapse of the wave function is a real physical phenomenon in his derivation of this inequality, Copenhagen makes the same assumption, so it must junk at least one of those 3, maybe more. But Many Worlds says the wave function never collapses so it can have all 3.

Bell on Bell’s theorem: The changing face of nonlocality

> It occurred to me that when solving Schroedinger's equation, one needs initial conditions. 

It's not just Schroedinger's equation even in Newtonian physics and even if you know every single one of the physical laws involved  perfectly you can't make predictions at all, not even approximate ones, if you have no idea about initial conditions. You can't predict where a pendulum will be three seconds from now if you have no idea where it is right now.

> Even if matter waves are ignored in the interpretation of superposition, a deep mystery remains; why do those waves in the double slit experiment always result in particle detection at the screen? 

Because of Fourier analysis we know that even the most complex waves can be decomposed into an infinite sum of far simpler waves, and one of those simpler waves is Alan Grayson seeing an electron at point X, and another of those simpler waves is Alan Grayson seeing an electron at point Y. Many Worlds insist that a particle is just a convenient fiction used by beings in any particular branch of the multiverse, aka a simpler decomposition of the Universal Wave Function. Many Worlds says that matter, and fundamental reality in general, consists of waves not particles.

[Alan Grayson]

Not intending to insult, but overall your response is an good example of Trump Physics. For example, you discuss measuring spin, Up or Dn, while denying you know what measurement is. You claim AG can be observed in X or Y by copies of AG, by a wave which by definition has no definite location. You ignore or to flat-out admit that the HUP implies the failure of classical determinism. And so forth. AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, February 14, 2021 at 3:47:04 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

Not intending to insult, but overall your response is an good example of Trump Physics. For example, you discuss measuring spin, Up or Dn, while denying you know what measurement is. You claim AG can be observed in X or Y by copies of AG, by a wave which by definition has no definite location. You ignore or to flat-out admit that the HUP implies the failure of classical determinism. And so forth. AG

I meant to write, " ... You claim AG can be observed AT POINTS X and Y by copies of AG, ...  ."  AG 

[John Clark]

On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 5:52 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, February 14, 2021 at 3:47:04 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

Not intending to insult, but overall your response is an good example of Trump Physics.

Not intending to insult, but you sir are an ass.

John  K Clark

--
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/0df25e1b-de6b-408e-b487-b06e8a3db61cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

As expected; no substance. Have you heard? Trump was acquitted. He had nothing to do with the Capitol events on Jan 6. LOL. AG

[Alan Grayson]

It's not very hard to see the error. If you assume an electron, or whatever, is a particle -- meaning localized in space -- it's going to be impossible to model it as going through both slits. But if you use DeBroglie's insight and assume it ravels as a wave before detection, you're relieved of what is really a self-imposed paradox. Why the thing is always a particle when detected remains a mystery regardless of any model you adopt, but adding an unnecessary assumption in the face of DeBroglie's insight is asking for big trouble. And that trouble comes in the form of Schroedinger's cat. A word to the wise is sufficient. AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 7:55:21 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

It's not very hard to see the error. If you assume an electron, or whatever, is a particle -- meaning localized in space -- it's going to be impossible to model it as going through both slits. But if you use DeBroglie's insight and assume it travels as a wave before detection, you're relieved of what is really a self-imposed paradox. Why the thing is always a particle when detected remains a mystery regardless of any model you adopt, but adding an unnecessary assumption in the face of DeBroglie's insight is asking for big trouble. And that trouble comes in the form of Schroedinger's cat. A word to the wise is sufficient. AG

So material particles travel as waves and therefore interfere with themselves as those waves go through both slits. No need to assume that before measurement, a system is simultaneously in all states of a superposition representing it. And no need to claim S's cat is Alive and Dead simultaneously before measurement. IMO, this is what Schroedinger was trying to demonstrate; namely, the absurdity of the interpretation of superposition to mean the simultaneity as previous described. But inexplicably many have fallen in love, deeply in love with this absurdity. So I refer to this pathology as Trump physics. AG 

[Bruno Marchal]

On 6 Feb 2021, at 20:27, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why

John K Clark

My comment there:

<<

Why to assume even one universe? We know since the 1930s that all models of elementary arithmetic execute all computations, and that no universal machine can know which computations  support it, and indeed that if the machine looks below at itself (and environment) its Mechanist Substitution level, she has to see the statistical impact of the "parallel computation". The only problem is that the wave itself must be explained by the logics of machine self-reference mathematics, and that is what I did (already in the 1970s, but I took it as an argument against Mechanism, as I was not aware that the physicists were already there. The advantage is a simpler "theory of everything" (elementary arithmetic or Turing equivalent), but also that we get very naturally the qualia/quanta distinctions. This if unfortunately not well known, and of course physicalist or materialist philosophers hate this, as physics become reducible to pure arithmetic/computer science.

>>

We do have evidence for a physical reality, but we don’t have any evidence that the physical reality if the fundamental reality, and I can argue that we have a lot of evidence that the fundamental reality is not physical, but arithmetical. We have even a proof once we assume the (indexical and digital) Mechanist hypothesis in the cognitive science (not in the physical science).

Bruno

--
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/CAJPayv3X6qaRJecTGkBq596HR_dhHLnpR5M_o6VJcYF%2BLGK%3DRg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Brent Meeker]

On 3/9/2021 5:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 6 Feb 2021, at 20:27, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why

John K Clark

My comment there:

<<

Why to assume even one universe? We know since the 1930s that all models of elementary arithmetic execute all computations, and that no universal machine can know which computations  support it, and indeed that if the machine looks below at itself (and environment) its Mechanist Substitution level, she has to see the statistical impact of the "parallel computation". The only problem is that the wave itself must be explained by the logics of machine self-reference mathematics, and that is what I did (already in the 1970s, but I took it as an argument against Mechanism, as I was not aware that the physicists were already there. The advantage is a simpler "theory of everything" (elementary arithmetic or Turing equivalent), but also that we get very naturally the qualia/quanta distinctions. This if unfortunately not well known, and of course physicalist or materialist philosophers hate this, as physics become reducible to pure arithmetic/computer science.

>>

We do have evidence for a physical reality, but we don’t have any evidence that the physical reality if the fundamental reality, and I can argue that we have a lot of evidence that the fundamental reality is not physical, but arithmetical. We have even a proof once we assume the (indexical and digital) Mechanist hypothesis in the cognitive science (not in the physical science).

Whatever explains every possibility, fails to explain anything at all.

Brent

[spudb...@aol.com]

Well Bruno, for me, even a more profound concept is from astrophysics and not from Platonic/Computational physics. That being, if we ride the back of cosmic inflation, if it is indeed fact, then what is lost beyond our optical event horizon? Let us presume that the cosmos expanded since the Bang at a rate of 6 times faster than light, so what information is undetectable beyond this light cone? (a tip o' the hat to Minkowski!). We are not referring to a cyclic cosmos Atticus Greek style, nor Turok-Penrose style, but simply within earlier renditions of this universe. Just hot plasma? Middle Earth? A grand Platonic computer performing a power-on and self test? 

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6A05E8FE-62FF-4614-9564-FB75CDC38502%40ulb.ac.be

.

[Bruno Marchal]

That is how Deustch refuted Schmidhuber, perhaps, but it does not refute mechanism and its consequences, and indeed, the theory explains what we observe, and discard what we don’t observe, and this not just for the observable but also the sensible, the justifiable, etc.

You might critique all theories of everything, as they explain everything, but that is interesting only if we can make prediction, both positive and negative, like physical laws. But with mechanism we have an explanation of where the physical laws come from, and why they give rise to sharable quanta, and non sharable qualia.

Physics fails. Not only it has not yet any unique theory of the universe, but two contradicting theories, but it does not address at all the question of consciousness, for good reason: it fails on this. It uses an identity thesis incompatible with Mechanism, used already in Darwin and in Molecular Biology. That is why strict materialist believer come up with the idea that consciousness is an illusion (but that is non-sensical), or just eliminate persons and consciousness altogether, which is not really satisfying…

Bruno

Brent

--
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/e386a89d-c7e6-136e-be96-d2be0682e31d%40verizon.net.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 10 Mar 2021, at 03:00, spudboy100 via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Well Bruno, for me, even a more profound concept is from astrophysics

Astrophysics is very interesting, but it cannot be deep if we assume Descartes-Darwin-Turing, in the sense that the laws of physics emerge from arithmetic, when assuming Mechanism.

and not from Platonic/Computational physics. That being, if we ride the back of cosmic inflation, if it is indeed fact, then what is lost beyond our optical event horizon? Let us presume that the cosmos expanded since the Bang at a rate of 6 times faster than light, so what information is undetectable beyond this light cone? (a tip o' the hat to Minkowski!). We are not referring to a cyclic cosmos Atticus Greek style, nor Turok-Penrose style, but simply within earlier renditions of this universe. Just hot plasma? Middle Earth? A grand Platonic computer performing a power-on and self test? 

A universal machinery is all you need, and all theories in physics assumes much more than that.

I don’t assume a physical universe, and I give the reason why: that theory is not part of physics, and in metaphysics it requires some very strong non-mechanist theory of mind, and that is far too much speculative for me.

There are simply no evidence at all that there is a physical universe “out there”, and that assumption is what makes consciousness apparently intractable, if not eliminated.

The many evidences that there is a physical reality should not be confused with some evidence that the physical reality would be the fundamental (ontologically) reality. The arithmetical explanation is much more simple, and get quanta and qualia, where physicalism (not physics) need a theory of mind which does not yet exist. Penrose made a good try, but does not use it to even address the mind-body problem, so it is hardly convincing. At least he is aware that his theory of mind has to be a non)computationalist theory of mind, which is coherent, at least..

Bruno

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/299206009.1004530.1615341636042%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Brent Meeker]

On 3/10/2021 7:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 9 Mar 2021, at 20:06, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On 3/9/2021 5:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 6 Feb 2021, at 20:27, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why

John K Clark

My comment there:

<<

Why to assume even one universe? We know since the 1930s that all models of elementary arithmetic execute all computations, and that no universal machine can know which computations  support it, and indeed that if the machine looks below at itself (and environment) its Mechanist Substitution level, she has to see the statistical impact of the "parallel computation". The only problem is that the wave itself must be explained by the logics of machine self-reference mathematics, and that is what I did (already in the 1970s, but I took it as an argument against Mechanism, as I was not aware that the physicists were already there. The advantage is a simpler "theory of everything" (elementary arithmetic or Turing equivalent), but also that we get very naturally the qualia/quanta distinctions. This if unfortunately not well known, and of course physicalist or materialist philosophers hate this, as physics become reducible to pure arithmetic/computer science.

>>

We do have evidence for a physical reality, but we don’t have any evidence that the physical reality if the fundamental reality, and I can argue that we have a lot of evidence that the fundamental reality is not physical, but arithmetical. We have even a proof once we assume the (indexical and digital) Mechanist hypothesis in the cognitive science (not in the physical science).

Whatever explains every possibility, fails to explain anything at all.

That is how Deustch refuted Schmidhuber, perhaps, but it does not refute mechanism and its consequences, and indeed, the theory explains what we observe, and discard what we don’t observe, and this not just for the observable but also the sensible, the justifiable, etc.

You might critique all theories of everything, as they explain everything, but that is interesting only if we can make prediction, both positive and negative, like physical laws. But with mechanism we have an explanation of where the physical laws come from, and why they give rise to sharable quanta, and non sharable qualia.

A good example.  You have an explanation of where physical laws come from because you have theory that explains every possible physical law (according to you).

Physics fails. Not only it has not yet any unique theory of the universe, but two contradicting theories, but it does not address at all the question of consciousness, for good reason: it fails on this. It uses an identity thesis incompatible with Mechanism, used already in Darwin and in Molecular Biology. That is why strict materialist believer

There's a big difference between being a believer and a scientist.   I'm content to regard problems as unsolved until someone finds a solution.

Brent

come up with the idea that consciousness is an illusion (but that is non-sensical), or just eliminate persons and consciousness altogether, which is not really satisfying…

Bruno

Brent

--
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/e386a89d-c7e6-136e-be96-d2be0682e31d%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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/D85A8911-5DBA-4295-89DD-95D42853FC82%40ulb.ac.be.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 10 Mar 2021, at 22:49, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On 3/10/2021 7:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 9 Mar 2021, at 20:06, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On 3/9/2021 5:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 6 Feb 2021, at 20:27, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why

John K Clark

My comment there:

<<

Why to assume even one universe? We know since the 1930s that all models of elementary arithmetic execute all computations, and that no universal machine can know which computations  support it, and indeed that if the machine looks below at itself (and environment) its Mechanist Substitution level, she has to see the statistical impact of the "parallel computation". The only problem is that the wave itself must be explained by the logics of machine self-reference mathematics, and that is what I did (already in the 1970s, but I took it as an argument against Mechanism, as I was not aware that the physicists were already there. The advantage is a simpler "theory of everything" (elementary arithmetic or Turing equivalent), but also that we get very naturally the qualia/quanta distinctions. This if unfortunately not well known, and of course physicalist or materialist philosophers hate this, as physics become reducible to pure arithmetic/computer science.

>>

We do have evidence for a physical reality, but we don’t have any evidence that the physical reality if the fundamental reality, and I can argue that we have a lot of evidence that the fundamental reality is not physical, but arithmetical. We have even a proof once we assume the (indexical and digital) Mechanist hypothesis in the cognitive science (not in the physical science).

Whatever explains every possibility, fails to explain anything at all.

That is how Deustch refuted Schmidhuber, perhaps, but it does not refute mechanism and its consequences, and indeed, the theory explains what we observe, and discard what we don’t observe, and this not just for the observable but also the sensible, the justifiable, etc.

You might critique all theories of everything, as they explain everything, but that is interesting only if we can make prediction, both positive and negative, like physical laws. But with mechanism we have an explanation of where the physical laws come from, and why they give rise to sharable quanta, and non sharable qualia.

A good example.  You have an explanation of where physical laws come from because you have theory that explains every possible physical law (according to you).

?

It explains the actual physical laws, which are “necessary” with Mechanism (not “possible”). 

It is not my theory. It is the same (Digital) Mechanism that we need for attributing an explanative power to Darwin’s theory of Evolution, confirmed by the existence of a genetic code, which makes us digital as far as our biological current theory are approximately correct. 

The whole point is that it makes the appearance of a physical reality as a *necessary* consequence of incompleteness, and this in a constructive way so that if we find the slightest discrepancy between this Turing machine introspective physics and the actual observations, we would refute Mechanism (or bet on some conspiration, but that is a trivial non interesting move). That did not yet happen. 

It makes the laws of physics unique. Indeed, the whole physicalness is an invariant for *all* digital machines. Physics emerge from *all* computation. A Turing machine already proves that “If heaven exists, it too obeys quantum mechanics". Mechanism makes physics much more solid than the usual Aristotelian extrapolation from observation can let us hope.

With Mechanism physics is literally reduced to arithmetic, and this through the appearances that the arithmetical reality got when viewed by inside by Löbian machine.

This will not kill the physical science, because such a physics is useless as a prediction tool, but it is useful to remain modest, and especially to avoid the elimination of the (first) person, and consciousness, that the (weak) materialist are obliged to do if they want to keep up mechanism. But this contradicts the only data we can really be sure about: personal consciousness. 

Digital Mechanism just enforces us to extend Darwin’s evolution idea to the origin of the physical realm, a branch of the bio-psycho-theology of (relative) numbers.

The theory exists, it works up to now.

Physics fails. Not only it has not yet any unique theory of the universe, but two contradicting theories, but it does not address at all the question of consciousness, for good reason: it fails on this. It uses an identity thesis incompatible with Mechanism, used already in Darwin and in Molecular Biology. That is why strict materialist believer

There's a big difference between being a believer and a scientist.   I'm content to regard problems as unsolved until someone finds a solution.

I agree. A scientist should avoid any ontological commitment different that the implicit model of the terms he is using, but even that model can only be implicit (by incompleteness).

The problem here is that there are still many scientists (or pseudo-scientists perhaps) who believe in a primary physical universe, like if that was a scientific fact. That is not a problem for using physics, but it is a problem when doing metaphysics, as we are, in that case, not allowed to decide the nature of Reality: it is simply part of the inquiry. 

Now, we cannot start from the empty theory, so we have at least to agree on something, and with mechanism, we can start from elementary arithmetical truth, like x + 0 = x. We don’t need 0 + x = x, and indeed that is not provable in Q.

Bruno

Brent

come up with the idea that consciousness is an illusion (but that is non-sensical), or just eliminate persons and consciousness altogether, which is not really satisfying…

Bruno

Brent

--
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/e386a89d-c7e6-136e-be96-d2be0682e31d%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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/D85A8911-5DBA-4295-89DD-95D42853FC82%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/748bc420-4f8e-525b-a5f1-d9acc723681e%40verizon.net.