On 24-11-2023 10:49, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/23/2023 10:38 PM, smitra wrote:On 23-11-2023 22:12, Brent Meeker wrote:On 11/23/2023 2:26 AM, John Clark wrote:On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 5:55 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote:Bohr insisted that we treat electrons as quantum objects but ourmeasuring instruments as classical objects. He also insisted that human observers were classical objects, but he never specified exactly where the dividing line between the quantum world and the classical world was. And if that dividing line isn't the "Heisenberg cut" then what is? But to be fair to you it's difficult to know exactly what Bohr endorsed because much of his philosophical prose is virtually unreadable; that's one reason the Copenhagen adherence can't agree about fundamentally important things even among themselves.The point is that Bohr (unlike Heisenberg) didn't regard the "cut"as part of physics. It was a choice of our description. It could be chosen anywhere up to the macroscopicOK, but Let me ask you this, like Bohr does that explanation satisfy your curiosity about the fundamental nature of reality so much that you don’t think anybody should even try to find something better, sowe should just give up? No, but we shouldn't adopt a just-so-story outof desperation to avoid saying, "We don't know."Are you absolutely certain nobody will ever find an explanation a little more satisfying than that?Are you absolutely certain that the long sought theory of quantum gravity will not change our view of QM?Should Galileo have been satisfied with "things fall to the ground because it is their nature to do so", should Newton have been satisfied with that, or Einstein? If we never even try to find something better than that we will certainly never find it.You're the one who is saying, "I've found the truth and it's MWI." Not me. You criticize me because QBism isn't _enough_ interpretation for you. It leaves too much open._> This more like QBism_Nobody is saying that QBism a.k.a. Copenhagen, a.k.a. Shut Up And Calculate, doesn’t work; if you’re an Engineer who doesn't care what's going on and just wants to make money with a new gadget it’s fine.But it's gone beyond Copenhagen and cleaned up some of Copenhagen's vagueness by taking advantage of deoherence theory.Experimental results are necessary but they are not sufficient,you also need a theory to make sense of it all, otherwise it's just a bunch of numbers._ > Experimental results include theoretical interpretations which get written up in arXiv.org, all of which are macroscopic and classical so we can all read them and agree on what they say. _Everybody agrees on what the results of an experiment are, but they disagree about what they mean. Without the General Theory OfRelativity the LIGO results are just squiggles produced by 2 mirrors 21/2 miles apart. So the mirrors squiggle, who cares?_> it's all NECESSARILY CLASSICA_Using only classical concepts explain to me how and why the Quantum Eraser Experiment works. The explanation is in print which is classical.Anyway you're sure Many Worlds is better than than just notingthat probability means one thing happens and others don't.That's not what probability means.But that's what it needs to mean to explain empirical results.Probability is a real number between zero and one that can be used to make money by making bets on what you will see next provided you only make bets when that number is greater than 0.5 and you make enough bets. And quantum mechanics can tell you what that number is.But MWI says all the bets win. It doesn't tell you will only see oneresult. It doesn't take the probabilities seriously. How is it evenan interpretation without interpreting the Born rule. When I think ofMWI I think "results become orthogonal" should say "...and then all but one vanish." But that violates the dogma that only the Schroedinger equation is needed.If all bets win, then you would still only see one result. Probability is not a well-defined physical concept anyway:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzSE4Hoxbc&t=1036sThis also means that MWI is likely also not the final answer, but the implied multiverse aspect of Nature is hard to escape. It's similar to the position Einstein was in when he had very powerful arguments why gravity should be described as curved spacetime before he had found the field equations.I think it makes much more sense to ditch probability altogether as a fundamental concept and instead use information as the more fundamental concept. If I observe the result of an experiment, then I obtain new in formation. I started out as a container of a massive amount of information that defines exactly who I am (or actually that part of it that I am aware of myself). So, before the measurement the fact that it's me that is about to do the measurement, not someone else is part of the observation. Personal identity is then just the sum total of all the information, and this then changes by a tiny amount as a result of the information that comes out of the experiment.Probability is then an approximate concept that arises when you pretend that the vast amount of information that defines an observer is kept fixed and you can keep the small amount of additional information that specifies the outcome of the experiment separate from the rest. Yiu can then talk about some given observer who obtained result X who could also have obtained result Y In reality the observer having measured X is not the same observer as that initially identical observer having measured Y.Probability can then be ditched in favor of information, because if X has a larger probability, then that means that you need less information to specify X given the initial state than you need to specify Y.That doesn't seem to get rid of probability. How will you empirically confirm that you need less information to specify X than Y. You will still need frequentist statistics.
That's true from an empiric point of view. The idea is that after many experiments the state corresponding to a typical outcome can be described with less information that states that have atypical outcomes.
And I don't see that "specify" is
the right word. X may be up and Y down so they each take the same information to specify, but X may be much more probably than Y.
Yes, that can happen when specifying the outcome of a few experiments. In case of specifying the outcome of a large set of experiments, then one set will be far more compressible given the prior information of the experimental setup than the other set.
If one then considers all the information someone has, not just the latest outcome of a spin measurement, then the fact that the observer itself requires a massive amount of information to be specified ios going to be relevant.
Saibal
BrentSaibalBrentJohn K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis [1] wni-- 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 visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2Tr8eYxgnT9VQ%2BW6Yn2s8AY8dykHg%2BH9Mrov3mkb4d8Q%40mail.gmail.com[2].-- 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, sendan email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1ba5511a-5e0c-4fa0-b676-5770de0b339a%40gmail.com [3].Links: ------ [1] https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis [2]https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2Tr8eYxgnT9VQ%2BW6Yn2s8AY8dykHg%2BH9Mrov3mkb4d8Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer [3]https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1ba5511a-5e0c-4fa0-b676-5770de0b339a%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/a45fd9148e5aabdaf25f0460b1ef2d67%40zonnet.nl.
