On Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 4:02 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 11/29/2023 11:23 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 12:19 AM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 11/29/2023 8:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 9:57 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 11/29/2023 4:58 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 7:17 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou < >>>> stath...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou < >>>>>> stath...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Born rule allows you to calculate the probability of what >>>>>>> outcome you will see in a Universe where all outcomes occur. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You are still conflating incompatible theories. The Born rule is a >>>>>> rule for calculating probabilities from the wave function -- it says >>>>>> nothing about worlds or existence. MWI is a theory about the existence of >>>>>> many worlds. These theories are incompatible, and should not be >>>>>> conflated. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> “The Born rule is a rule for calculating probabilities from the wave >>>>> function -- it says nothing about worlds or existence” -and- “MWI is a >>>>> theory about the existence of many worlds” are not incompatible >>>>> statements. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Perhaps that is the wrong way to look at it. The linearity of the >>>> Schrodinger equation implies that the individuals on all branches are the >>>> same: there is nothing to distinguish one of them as "you" and the others >>>> as mere shadows or zombies. In other words, they are all "you". So you are >>>> the person on the branch with all spins up and your probability of seeing >>>> this result is one, since this branch certainly exists, and, by linearity, >>>> "you" are the individual on that branch. This is inconsistent with the >>>> claim that the Born rule gives the probability that "you" will see some >>>> particular result. As we have seen, the probability that "you" will see all >>>> ups in one, whereas the Born probability for this result is 1/2^N. These >>>> probability estimates are incompatible. >>>> >>> >>> >>> According to relativity you exist in all times across your lifespan (and >>> all times are equally really). >>> >>> Sez who? >>> >> >> Sez Einstein, Minkowski, C.W. Rietdijk, Kip Thorne, Briane Greene, and >> Roger Penrose, to name a few. >> >> >> Yes I'm sure you can find some Platonist to cite. >> > > Are all of those physicists platonists? > > Do you think that your future world-line exists? >> > > Yes, but I further believe there's not just one unique future (but many of > them in the multiverse). > > > >> >> >> You take these images intended to help your mathematical intution far too >>> seriously. >>> >> >> You agreed with this at one point in time. >> >> >> Can you quote me? >> > > > > From this email and the one that follows: > > https://groups.google.com/g/everything-list/c/jyB504QkIAs/m/0V0qGJO7Vj0J > > "Yes. So why don't you recognize that "present place" is just a label, > exactly like a latitude and longitude - and then that "present time" is a > label, a coordinate time - which the diagrams I posted made perfectly > clear. The problem is that you seem to think "here and now" implies a > "there and now"; but "there and now" is ambiguous and is RELATIVE to the > state of motion." > > "And just like "here" is relative to state of motion, so is "now". SR > isn't complicated, it > just takes a little adjustment before it's intuitive." > > > > Perhaps I misinterpreted, but I took these quotes to mean you believed the > present was an indexical like "here" and is in no way privileged. > > > I don't recall what diagram was being referenced. But I have no problem > with talking about past (or even future) world lines. But I regard them as > constructs to help our thinking. > > > > >> >> In any case, it's not a mere image, but a well accepted implication of >> relativity. >> >> Then you must believe that your future is as fixed as your past. >> > > I have many futures and many pasts (compatible with my present state of > awareness). > > > So you, here and now, have many pasts. Is that a well accepted > implication of relativity? > No that's relativity+QM. If you only assumed relativity then there would be one already-extant future for you. Jaso > 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d09199d0-9576-4cab-9e20-bff55a313468%40gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d09199d0-9576-4cab-9e20-bff55a313468%40gmail.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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgGgt4KPe99Y%3D47thRAFLpH%2BQV9kzkppfsAPKFHAG9RTQ%40mail.gmail.com.
