On 11/28/2023 4:28 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 5:00 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com>
wrote:
/>>> I can arrange for any probability between zero and
one of seeing a live cat. Whereas, if there is always a
live cat branch and a dead cat branch, my probability of
seeing a live cat is always 50%, contrary to the laws of
radioactive decay./
>> That would be true only if the cat had one and only one
property, the alive/dead property. But, except for Black
Holes, all macroscopic objects have an astronomical number of
properties and most of them are not binary, however in the cat
thought experiment you're only interested in one of them and
it is binary, the alive/dead property. You're not interested
in the precise position or momentum of a particular electron
in the cat's left toenail. So there are an astronomical number
of cats, and there are an astronomical number of Bruce
Kelletts, and all of them are in very slightly different
quantum states, but the astronomical number of Bruce Kelletts
who observe a living cat when the box is opened is 9 times
larger than the astronomical number Bruce Kelletts who observe
a dead cat. So before the box was opened all the Bruce
Kelletts would expect to see a living cat, but 10% of them
would be surprised.
/> None of that is in the Schrodinger equation. The infinities are
all of your own making,/
That is incorrect. Schrodinger's equation, the thing that generates
the complex wave function, says nothing, absolutely nothing, about
that wave function collapsing, So if you don't like philosophical
paradoxes but still want to use Schrodinger's equation because it
always gives correct results, you only have 2 options:
1) You can stick on bells and whistles to Schrodinger's equation to
get rid of those other worlds that you find so annoying even though
there's no experimental evidence that they are needed.
You can do exactly the same thing the MWI fans do and apply the Born
rule to predict the probability of your world. That's MWI fan's bells
and whistles which they keep trying to deny.
Brent
2) You can use bafflegab, as Niels Bohr did, to conceal the fact that
the universe is odd, very very odd.
I don't like the first option because I do like William of Ockham. And
I don't like the second option because I do like clarity. Maybe
tomorrow something better will pop up but as of today the only quantum
interpretation that doesn't use either of the above two options
is Many Worlds.
John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
qqb
--
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/CAJPayv1oNwtEBomszARqEMYXUdo2-0zLi9cTeeYC%2B8JGJ4SwHw%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1oNwtEBomszARqEMYXUdo2-0zLi9cTeeYC%2B8JGJ4SwHw%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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4f924191-8ea6-4552-b640-5510eecf0e1e%40gmail.com.
