date:20211220

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 18:12, Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 5:50 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 15:55, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/20/2021 6:13 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>>
>>> The probabilities come from the fact that observers consider themselves
>>> unique individuals persisting through time.
>>>
>>>
>>> But that doesn't imply any kind of probability unless they regard
>>> themselves as the one member of an ensemble that is unique, e.g. the one
>>> that really exists or the one that's really me.  Otherwise they are just
>>> like the duplicate Captain Kirks.
>>>
>>
>> Each copy does indeed feel as if they are the one true continuation of
>> the original even though they know that they are not, because that is the
>> nature of first person experience.
>>
>
> You still need to introduce an independent notion of probability because
> each member must consider himself to be a random selection from the
> ensemble. The notion of a random selection cannot be defined without
> reference to some prior notion of probability.
>

Yes, but you don't need any specific theory about how your identity moves
from one body into the next.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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/CAH%3D2ypWSj8P9o%2B4iZVtPb8YE8gzAY7i18cwuCTUBtM0%3Dfknqfg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 5:50 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 15:55, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>> On 12/20/2021 6:13 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>> The probabilities come from the fact that observers consider themselves
>> unique individuals persisting through time.
>>
>>
>> But that doesn't imply any kind of probability unless they regard
>> themselves as the one member of an ensemble that is unique, e.g. the one
>> that really exists or the one that's really me.  Otherwise they are just
>> like the duplicate Captain Kirks.
>>
>
> Each copy does indeed feel as if they are the one true continuation of the
> original even though they know that they are not, because that is the
> nature of first person experience.
>

You still need to introduce an independent notion of probability because
each member must consider himself to be a random selection from the
ensemble. The notion of a random selection cannot be defined without
reference to some prior notion of probability.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSMM%3DgnJ5X%3D6hUR%2BV8%2BZMF3sDpZUj8o%2B_CgwuCzj%3Dt3%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 15:55, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 12/20/2021 6:13 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 12:05, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 12/20/2021 4:19 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 09:56, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 12/20/2021 7:17 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 10:38 PM Brent Meeker 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 *> >> It also makes the assumption that the eigenvalues of a
>> measurement are realized probabilistically.*
>
>
 >> What is the eigenvalue of a temperature of 72°F? It doesn't have
> one. A measurement doesn't have an eigenvalue but a matrix does, such
> as the one that describes the Schrodinger Wave. And no quantum
> interpretation needs to assume there is a relationship between the square
> of the absolute value of that wave and probability because it is observed
> to be true.

 > *A temperature operator, which would be matrix, might very well
 return 72degF as the eigenvalue of a state eigenvector. *

>>>
>>> A temperature measurement taken at a particular time and place is not a
>>> temperature operator, and a measurement is not a probability, although
>>> the square of the absolute value of a wave function might tell you the
>>> probability of you getting that temperature measurement at that time and
>>> place.
>>>
>>> *>  Yes, it's empirically supported; So's the Schroedinger equation.
 But it's part of the application of the Schroedinger equation.  It's not in
 the equation itself. *
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know what you mean by that.
>>>
>>> It's the projection postulate in the Copenhagen interpretation that
>>> applies the Born rule.  In MWI it's the Born rule plus some kind of
>>> self-locating uncertainty to allow for the probabilistic observations.  So
>>> those are things not in the Schroedinger equation.
>>>
>> Self-locating uncertainty is not dependent on any particular theory. It’s
>> the same whether it’s the Many Worlds, the Star Trek teleporter or God that
>> does the duplicating.
>>
>>
>> Not exactly.  In those other theories you mention you can put all the
>> duplicates side by side and there's no sense to the question, which one
>> happened?  They all did and there's no probability to assign to them;
>> because probability only makes sense when something happens and other
>> things don't.
>>
>
> The probabilities come from the fact that observers consider themselves
> unique individuals persisting through time.
>
>
> But that doesn't imply any kind of probability unless they regard
> themselves as the one member of an ensemble that is unique, e.g. the one
> that really exists or the one that's really me.  Otherwise they are just
> like the duplicate Captain Kirks.
>

Each copy does indeed feel as if they are the one true continuation of the
original even though they know that they are not, because that is the
nature of first person experience.

> --
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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/CAH%3D2ypU92JBeZGsEZVEmp8%2B%3D5NKK4%3Dc8v%2BoG48qnJVYg7%3DD3sQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 4:40 PM Jesse Mazer  wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 8:10 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 11:53 AM Jesse Mazer 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> But one of the big selling points of the MWI is to give some sort of
>>> objective picture of reality in which "measurements" have no distinguished
>>> role, but are simply treated using the usual rules of quantum interactions.
>>>
>>
>> At one time, that might have been a point on which to prefer MWI over
>> Bohr's version of the CI, but that is no longer true. Modern collapse
>> theories do not have to distinguish particular "measurement" events, and do
>> not have to assume a classical superstructure . In modern fGRW, for
>> example, everything can be treated as quantum, and the theory is completely
>> objective.
>>
>> fGRW has the added advantage that it is an inherently stochastic theory.
>> Probability is treated as a primitive notion that is not based on
>> anything else. MWI struggles with the concept of probability, and while it
>> has to reject a frequentist basis for probability, it cannot really supply
>> anything else. Self-locating uncertainty does not, in itself, serve to
>> define probability. You have to have some notion of a random selection from
>> a set, and that is not available in either the Schrodinger equation or in
>> self-locating uncertainty.
>>
>
> What does fGRW stand for?
>

It is short for Flash-GRW, in which the random collapse interactions of GRW
are replaced by "flashes". The point here is that this formulation is
Lorentz invariant and completely relativistic.

If it's stochastic, do you mean it's one of those theories that involves
> stochastic spontaneous collapse? Such theories are usually in principle
> experimentally distinguishable from QM, would that be true of this theory
> as well?
>

In principle this collapse model is distinguishable from no-collapse
models. The experiments to detect this might be outside current
capabilities.

If you have to say "OK, I believe in the MWI plus Born rule for
>>> measurements" with there being no dynamical definition of what qualifies as
>>> a measurement, where the moments we call 'measurements' are just something
>>> we feed into the theory on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis, then this claim
>>> to objectivity is lost and it's not clear what theoretical appeal it has
>>> over the Copenhagen interpretation.
>>>
>>> Personally I still lean towards some version of the MWI being true
>>> mainly because you can come up with a toy model with MWI-style splitting
>>> that deals with Bell style experiments in a way that preserves locality
>>>
>>
>> No you can't.
>>
>>> but doesn't require hidden variables (see
>>> https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/1/87/htm ) but I see it as a sort of
>>> work in progress rather than a complete interpretation.
>>>
>>
>> They set up a contrast between realism and locality.
>>
>
> I wasn't linking to the paper for the argument about semantics (there
> doesn't seem to be any agreed-upon definition of 'realism' distinct from
> local realism in physics, from what I've seen) but rather for the toy model
> they provide in section 5 with the experimenters being duplicated when they
> try to measure the entangled particle. The point is that Alice is locally
> duplicated when she measures her particle, and Bob is locally duplicated
> when he measures his, but there is no need for the universe to decide which
> copy of Bob inhabits the same "world" as a given copy of Alice, or vice
> versa, until there's been time for signals limited by the speed of light to
> pass between them (or to a third observer). This is not the sort of "local
> realist" theory that Bell was trying to refute (one of the implicit
> assumptions in his derivation was that each spin measurement produces
> exactly one of two possible outcomes), but the dynamics of such splitting
> can be perfectly local, and it can still be true that if you randomly
> select one of the copies of an observer in a Bell type experiment, the
> probabilities that your randomly selected copy will see various outcomes
> can be made to match the QM predictions that violate Bell inequalities.
>

This seems to be the hand-waving way in which this is usually argued. I was
asking for something a little more concrete.

There is a fairly simple argument that shows that many worlds ideas can
have no role to play in the violation of the Bell inequalities. In other
words, there is an indirect no-go theorem for the idea that MWI makes these
experiments completely local.

The argument goes like this. Take Alice and Bob measuring spin states on
members of entangled pairs of particles -- they are presumed to be distant
from each other, and independent. Alice, say, measures a sequence of
particles at random polarizer orientations, randomizing the polarizer angle
between measurements. She records her results (up or down) in a lab book.
After N such pairs have been measured, her lab book contains a sequence

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

2021-12-20 Thread Jesse Mazer

On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 8:10 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 11:53 AM Jesse Mazer  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 7:01 PM John Clark  wrote:
>>
>>> Brent Meeker  Wrote:
>>>
>>> *>  Yes, it's empirically supported; So's the Schroedinger equation.
 But it's part of the application of the Schroedinger equation.  It's not in
 the equation itself. *
>>>
>>>
>>> > I don't know what you mean by that.
>>>
>>> *> It's the projection postulate in the Copenhagen interpretation that
 applies the Born rule.  In MWI it's the Born rule plus some kind of
 self-locating uncertainty to allow for the probabilistic observations.  So
 those are things not in the Schroedinger equation.*
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know how you figure that. It has been mathematically proven that
>>> the Born rule is the only way to get probabilities out of Schrodinger's
>>> equation such that all the probabilities add up to 1. And Schrodinger says
>>> an electron wave can be in any location, and in a camera/electron wave a
>>> camera will observe the electron being in every location, and in a Brent
>>> Meeker/camera/electron wave there will be a  Brent Meeker for every camera
>>> that sees an electron in every location.
>>>
>>> *> No, you can't observe the Born rule to be true any more (or less)
 than you can observe Schroedinger's equation to be true.*
>>>
>>>
>>> Nonsense! Every quantum physicist alive believes the Born rule is valid
>>> and they use it every day, and the reason they're so confident is because
>>> the Born rule has always conform with observations and all empirical tests
>>> , so it doesn't need a seal of approval  from a theory for us to think it's
>>> true, but a theory may need a seal of approval from the Born Rule to
>>> convince us that a theory is true. That's because observation always
>>> outranks theory.
>>>
>>
>> But one of the big selling points of the MWI is to give some sort of
>> objective picture of reality in which "measurements" have no distinguished
>> role, but are simply treated using the usual rules of quantum interactions.
>>
>
> At one time, that might have been a point on which to prefer MWI over
> Bohr's version of the CI, but that is no longer true. Modern collapse
> theories do not have to distinguish particular "measurement" events, and do
> not have to assume a classical superstructure . In modern fGRW, for
> example, everything can be treated as quantum, and the theory is completely
> objective.
>
> fGRW has the added advantage that it is an inherently stochastic theory.
> Probability is treated as a primitive notion that is not based on
> anything else. MWI struggles with the concept of probability, and while it
> has to reject a frequentist basis for probability, it cannot really supply
> anything else. Self-locating uncertainty does not, in itself, serve to
> define probability. You have to have some notion of a random selection from
> a set, and that is not available in either the Schrodinger equation or in
> self-locating uncertainty.
>

What does fGRW stand for? If it's stochastic, do you mean it's one of those
theories that involves stochastic spontaneous collapse? Such theories are
usually in principle experimentally distinguishable from QM, would that be
true of this theory as well?



>
>
> If you have to say "OK, I believe in the MWI plus Born rule for
>> measurements" with there being no dynamical definition of what qualifies as
>> a measurement, where the moments we call 'measurements' are just something
>> we feed into the theory on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis, then this claim
>> to objectivity is lost and it's not clear what theoretical appeal it has
>> over the Copenhagen interpretation.
>>
>> Personally I still lean towards some version of the MWI being true mainly
>> because you can come up with a toy model with MWI-style splitting that
>> deals with Bell style experiments in a way that preserves locality
>>
>
> No you can't.
>
>> but doesn't require hidden variables (see
>> https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/1/87/htm ) but I see it as a sort of
>> work in progress rather than a complete interpretation.
>>
>
> They set up a contrast between realism and locality.
>

I wasn't linking to the paper for the argument about semantics (there
doesn't seem to be any agreed-upon definition of 'realism' distinct from
local realism in physics, from what I've seen) but rather for the toy model
they provide in section 5 with the experimenters being duplicated when they
try to measure the entangled particle. The point is that Alice is locally
duplicated when she measures her particle, and Bob is locally duplicated
when he measures his, but there is no need for the universe to decide which
copy of Bob inhabits the same "world" as a given copy of Alice, or vice
versa, until there's been time for signals limited by the speed of light to
pass between them (or to a third observer). This is not the sort of "local
realist" theory that Bell was trying to refute

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On 12/20/2021 7:32 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 7:50 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:

> MWI is completely deterministic, including the prediction that all
possibilities occur.

True.

/> So you have to have some assumption to get probabilities, such
that one thing happens and others don't. /

Yes, that is the one assumption you have to make in the MWI, you have
to assume that the Schrodinger wave equation means what it says, and
in words it says "/The rate of change of a wave function is
proportional to the energy of the quantum system and the high energy
parts of the wave function evolve rapidly while the low energy parts
evolve slowly/". It would be expected that more things happen in the
rapidly evolving parts then the slowly evolving parts.

Whether the Geiger counter detects five alpha particles in a second or
four doesn't depend on some atoms evolving slowly or quickly.

/> MWI finesses this by saying that you observe all possible
outcomes...but in other worlds. /

That depends on the meaning of the pronoun"you". In the fast evolving
part of the wave function more things are happening but there are also
more versions of "you" to see them, and some parts contain no energy
at all and thus nothing happens there at all. It is physically
impossible for some things to happen so no version of "you" sees it.

That's a strange thing to say. In the last few seconds thousands of
cosmic rays shot thru you and you didn't see or detect them in any way.
Yet according Everett they split the world into as many copies because
they left traces that could be observed where they passed thru solid
objects.

/> But the mechanism of this splitting, when and where it happens,
is as just as hand wavy as Copenhagen's projection postulate./

No, it's right there in the equation, the thing is that people forget
that they are a quantum system too and thus are also part of the
Schrodinger wave equation. The equation says nothing about a
separation between the observer and the thing that is being observed,
that is just pasted on by every quantum interpretation except for
Many Worlds. MWI is strip down bare bones no nonsense Quantum
Mechanics with none of the silly gimmicks tacked on just to make those
who dislike the idea that they are not unique feel good.

>> And Schrodinger says an electron wave can be in any location,
and in a camera/electron wave a camera will observe the
electron being in every location, and in a Brent
Meeker/camera/electron wave there will be a Brent Meeker for
every camera that sees an electron in every location.

/> That's like saying every horse in the gate is a possible winner
of the Kentucy derby. But that doesn't get you to
probabilitieswithout an assumption that one an only one will win.
Everett wants to avoid that assumption...which then takes
self-locating uncertainty to make it consistent with probabilistic
observations./

Schrodinger equation says high energy partsof the wave evolve swiftly,
so there would be more versions of you in those parts than in the low
energy parts, so it's more likely that "you" will end up in a higher
energy part than a low energy part.

>> Every quantum physicist alive believes the Born rule is valid
and they use it every day, and the reason they're so confident
is because the Born rule has always conform with observations
and all empirical tests , so it doesn't need a seal of
approval from a theory for us to think it's true, but a
theory may need a seal of approval from the Born Rule to
convince us that a theory is true. That's because observation
always outranks theory.

/> But observation is always finite, while theories claim infinite
applicability. Newton's mechanics is also used everyday, with
confidence. I didn't say theory made it true. Theory only shows
the Born rule is consistent with Hilbert space. /

And if the Born rule had been proven to be inconsistent with Hilbert
space physicist would not have gotten rid of the Born rule, instead
they would've gotten rid of Hilbert space, because the Born rule would
have continued to work regardless of what Hilbert space's opinion of
it is.

Without Hilbert space they'd have no state vector to apply the Born rule.

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/92928e0d-5f90-cf12-905f-9ba2ccc56757%40gmail.com.

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On 12/20/2021 6:13 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 12:05, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 12/20/2021 4:19 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 09:56, Brent Meeker
wrote:

On 12/20/2021 7:17 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 10:38 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:

/> >> It also makes the assumption that the
eigenvalues of a measurement are realized
probabilistically./

>> What is the eigenvalueof a temperature of 72°F? It
doesn't have one. A measurement doesn't have an
eigenvalue but a matrix does, such as the one that
describes the Schrodinger Wave. And no quantum
interpretation needs to assume there is a
relationship between the square of the absolute
value of that wave and probability because it is
observed to be true.

>///A temperature operator, which would be matrix, might
very well return 72degF as the eigenvalue of a state
eigenvector. /

A temperature measurement taken at a particular time and
place is not a temperature operator, and a measurement is
not a probability, although the square of the absolute value
of a wave function might tell you the probability of you
getting that temperature measurement at that time and place.

/> Yes, it's empirically supported; So's the
Schroedinger equation. But it's part of the application
of the Schroedinger equation. It's not in the equation
itself. /

I don't know what you mean by that.

It's the projection postulate in the Copenhagen
interpretation that applies the Born rule. In MWI it's the
Born rule plus some kind of self-locating uncertainty to
allow for the probabilistic observations. So those are
things not in the Schroedinger equation.

Self-locating uncertainty is not dependent on any particular
theory. It’s the same whether it’s the Many Worlds, the Star Trek
teleporter or God that does the duplicating.

Not exactly. In those other theories you mention you can put all
the duplicates side by side and there's no sense to the question,
which one happened? They all did and there's no probability to
assign to them; because probability only makes sense when
something happens and other things don't.

The probabilities come from the fact that observers consider
themselves unique individuals persisting through time.

But that doesn't imply any kind of probability unless they regard
themselves as the one member of an ensemble that is unique, e.g. the one
that really exists or the one that's really me. Otherwise they are just
like the duplicate Captain Kirks.

Brent

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 14:32, John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 7:50 PM Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
> > MWI is completely deterministic, including the prediction that all
>> possibilities occur.
>>
>
> True.
>
>
>> *> So you have to have some assumption to get probabilities, such that
>> one thing happens and others don't. *
>>
>
> Yes, that is the one assumption you have to make in the MWI, you have to
> assume that the Schrodinger wave equation means what it says, and in words
> it says  "*The rate of change of a wave function is proportional to the
> energy of the quantum system and the high energy parts of the wave function
> evolve rapidly while the low energy parts evolve slowly*". It would be
> expected that more things happen in the rapidly evolving parts then the slowly
> evolving parts.
>
>
>> * > MWI finesses this by saying that you observe all possible
>> outcomes...but in other worlds. *
>>
>
> That depends on the meaning of the pronoun "you". In the fast evolving
> part of the wave function more things are happening but there are also more
> versions of "you" to see them, and some parts contain no energy at all and
> thus nothing happens there at all. It is physically impossible for some
> things to happen so no version of "you" sees it.
>

But there are events such as the decay of an atom within a half life period
that one version of you will see and another version of you will see, which
is interpreted as a 1/2 probability of you seeing the atom decay, if you
have a normal human brain without telepathic communication with other
copies.

* > But the mechanism of this splitting, when and where it happens, is as
>> just as hand wavy as Copenhagen's projection postulate.*
>>
>
> No, it's right there in the equation, the thing is that people forget
> that they are a quantum system too and thus are also part of the
> Schrodinger wave equation. The equation says nothing about a separation
> between the observer and the thing that is being observed, that is just
> pasted  on by every quantum interpretation except for  Many Worlds. MWI is
> strip down bare bones no nonsense Quantum Mechanics with none of the silly
> gimmicks tacked on just to make those who dislike the idea that they are
> not unique feel good.
>
> >> And Schrodinger says an electron wave can be in any location, and in a
>>> camera/electron wave a camera will observe the electron being in every
>>> location, and in a Brent Meeker/camera/electron wave there will be a  Brent
>>> Meeker for every camera that sees an electron in every location.
>>
>>
>> * > That's like saying every horse in the gate is a possible winner of
>> the Kentucy derby. But that doesn't get you to probabilities without an
>> assumption that one an only one will win.  Everett wants to avoid that
>> assumption...which then takes self-locating uncertainty to make it
>> consistent with probabilistic observations.*
>>
>
> Schrodinger equation says high energy parts of the wave evolve swiftly,
> so there would be more versions of you in those parts than in the low
> energy parts, so it's more likely that "you" will end up in a higher energy
> part than a low energy part.
>
>  >> Every quantum physicist alive believes the Born rule is valid and
>>> they use it every day, and the reason they're so confident is because the
>>> Born rule has always conform with observations and all empirical tests , so
>>> it doesn't need a seal of approval  from a theory for us to think it's
>>> true, but a theory may need a seal of approval from the Born Rule to
>>> convince us that a theory is true. That's because observation always
>>> outranks theory.
>>
>>
>>
>
> * > But observation is always finite, while theories claim infinite
>> applicability.  Newton's mechanics is also used everyday, with confidence.
>> I didn't say theory made it true.  Theory only shows the Born rule is
>> consistent with Hilbert space. *
>>
>
> And if the Born rule had been proven to be inconsistent with Hilbert space
> physicist would not have gotten rid of the Born rule, instead they would've
> gotten rid of Hilbert space, because the Born rule would have continued to
> work regardless of what Hilbert space's opinion of it is.
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
> 
> hsx
>
> --
> 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/CAJPayv2xG74zs6U_Sf%3DZGwa4j1FCp6SNhZnUtPMPkm3%2B1vy-wQ%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>
-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 7:50 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

> MWI is completely deterministic, including the prediction that all
> possibilities occur.
>

True.

> *> So you have to have some assumption to get probabilities, such that one
> thing happens and others don't. *
>

Yes, that is the one assumption you have to make in the MWI, you have to
assume that the Schrodinger wave equation means what it says, and in words
it says  "*The rate of change of a wave function is proportional to the
energy of the quantum system and the high energy parts of the wave function
evolve rapidly while the low energy parts evolve slowly*". It would be
expected that more things happen in the rapidly evolving parts then the slowly
evolving parts.

> * > MWI finesses this by saying that you observe all possible
> outcomes...but in other worlds. *
>

That depends on the meaning of the pronoun "you". In the fast evolving part
of the wave function more things are happening but there are also more
versions of "you" to see them, and some parts contain no energy at all and
thus nothing happens there at all. It is physically impossible for some
things to happen so no version of "you" sees it.

* > But the mechanism of this splitting, when and where it happens, is as
> just as hand wavy as Copenhagen's projection postulate.*
>

No, it's right there in the equation, the thing is that people forget that
they are a quantum system too and thus are also part of the Schrodinger
wave equation. The equation says nothing about a separation between the
observer and the thing that is being observed, that is just pasted  on by
every quantum interpretation except for  Many Worlds. MWI is strip down
bare bones no nonsense Quantum Mechanics with none of the silly gimmicks
tacked on just to make those who dislike the idea that they are not unique
feel good.

>> And Schrodinger says an electron wave can be in any location, and in a
>> camera/electron wave a camera will observe the electron being in every
>> location, and in a Brent Meeker/camera/electron wave there will be a  Brent
>> Meeker for every camera that sees an electron in every location.
>
>
> * > That's like saying every horse in the gate is a possible winner of the
> Kentucy derby. But that doesn't get you to probabilities without an
> assumption that one an only one will win.  Everett wants to avoid that
> assumption...which then takes self-locating uncertainty to make it
> consistent with probabilistic observations.*
>

Schrodinger equation says high energy parts of the wave evolve swiftly, so
there would be more versions of you in those parts than in the low energy
parts, so it's more likely that "you" will end up in a higher energy part
than a low energy part.

 >> Every quantum physicist alive believes the Born rule is valid and they
>> use it every day, and the reason they're so confident is because the Born
>> rule has always conform with observations and all empirical tests , so it
>> doesn't need a seal of approval  from a theory for us to think it's true,
>> but a theory may need a seal of approval from the Born Rule to convince us
>> that a theory is true. That's because observation always outranks theory.
>
>
>

* > But observation is always finite, while theories claim infinite
> applicability.  Newton's mechanics is also used everyday, with confidence.
> I didn't say theory made it true.  Theory only shows the Born rule is
> consistent with Hilbert space. *
>

And if the Born rule had been proven to be inconsistent with Hilbert space
physicist would not have gotten rid of the Born rule, instead they would've
gotten rid of Hilbert space, because the Born rule would have continued to
work regardless of what Hilbert space's opinion of it is.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

hsx

-- 
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/CAJPayv2xG74zs6U_Sf%3DZGwa4j1FCp6SNhZnUtPMPkm3%2B1vy-wQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 12:05, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 12/20/2021 4:19 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 09:56, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 12/20/2021 7:17 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 10:38 PM Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> *> >> It also makes the assumption that the eigenvalues of a measurement
> are realized probabilistically.*


>>> >> What is the eigenvalue of a temperature of 72°F? It doesn't have
 one. A measurement doesn't have an eigenvalue but a matrix does, such
 as the one that describes the Schrodinger Wave. And no quantum
 interpretation needs to assume there is a relationship between the square
 of the absolute value of that wave and probability because it is observed
 to be true.
>>>
>>> > *A temperature operator, which would be matrix, might very well
>>> return 72degF as the eigenvalue of a state eigenvector. *
>>>
>>
>> A temperature measurement taken at a particular time and place is not a
>> temperature operator, and a measurement is not a probability, although
>> the square of the absolute value of a wave function might tell you the
>> probability of you getting that temperature measurement at that time and
>> place.
>>
>> *>  Yes, it's empirically supported; So's the Schroedinger equation.  But
>>> it's part of the application of the Schroedinger equation.  It's not in the
>>> equation itself. *
>>
>>
>> I don't know what you mean by that.
>>
>> It's the projection postulate in the Copenhagen interpretation that
>> applies the Born rule.  In MWI it's the Born rule plus some kind of
>> self-locating uncertainty to allow for the probabilistic observations.  So
>> those are things not in the Schroedinger equation.
>>
> Self-locating uncertainty is not dependent on any particular theory. It’s
> the same whether it’s the Many Worlds, the Star Trek teleporter or God that
> does the duplicating.
>
>
> Not exactly.  In those other theories you mention you can put all the
> duplicates side by side and there's no sense to the question, which one
> happened?  They all did and there's no probability to assign to them;
> because probability only makes sense when something happens and other
> things don't.
>

The probabilities come from the fact that observers consider themselves
unique individuals persisting through time.

> --
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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/CAH%3D2ypV2MwKAw7tY%2BLFto21%2BqRmtBKC6MMGZy6Dr2FR_UbK3Yg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 12:36 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

> On 12/20/2021 5:10 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 11:53 AM Jesse Mazer  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 7:01 PM John Clark  wrote:
>>
>>> Brent Meeker  Wrote:
>>>
>>> *>  Yes, it's empirically supported; So's the Schroedinger equation.
 But it's part of the application of the Schroedinger equation.  It's not in
 the equation itself. *
>>>
>>>
>>> > I don't know what you mean by that.
>>>
>>> *> It's the projection postulate in the Copenhagen interpretation that
 applies the Born rule.  In MWI it's the Born rule plus some kind of
 self-locating uncertainty to allow for the probabilistic observations.  So
 those are things not in the Schroedinger equation.*
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know how you figure that. It has been mathematically proven that
>>> the Born rule is the only way to get probabilities out of Schrodinger's
>>> equation such that all the probabilities add up to 1. And Schrodinger says
>>> an electron wave can be in any location, and in a camera/electron wave a
>>> camera will observe the electron being in every location, and in a Brent
>>> Meeker/camera/electron wave there will be a  Brent Meeker for every camera
>>> that sees an electron in every location.
>>>
>>> *> No, you can't observe the Born rule to be true any more (or less)
 than you can observe Schroedinger's equation to be true.*
>>>
>>>
>>> Nonsense! Every quantum physicist alive believes the Born rule is valid
>>> and they use it every day, and the reason they're so confident is because
>>> the Born rule has always conform with observations and all empirical tests
>>> , so it doesn't need a seal of approval  from a theory for us to think it's
>>> true, but a theory may need a seal of approval from the Born Rule to
>>> convince us that a theory is true. That's because observation always
>>> outranks theory.
>>>
>>
>> But one of the big selling points of the MWI is to give some sort of
>> objective picture of reality in which "measurements" have no distinguished
>> role, but are simply treated using the usual rules of quantum interactions.
>>
>
> At one time, that might have been a point on which to prefer MWI over
> Bohr's version of the CI, but that is no longer true. Modern collapse
> theories do not have to distinguish particular "measurement" events, and do
> not have to assume a classical superstructure . In modern fGRW, for
> example, everything can be treated as quantum, and the theory is completely
> objective.
>
> fGRW has the added advantage that it is an inherently stochastic theory.
> Probability is treated as a primitive notion that is not based on
> anything else. MWI struggles with the concept of probability, and while it
> has to reject a frequentist basis for probability, it cannot really supply
> anything else. Self-locating uncertainty does not, in itself, serve to
> define probability. You have to have some notion of a random selection from
> a set, and that is not available in either the Schrodinger equation or in
> self-locating uncertainty.
>
>
> In principle one should be able to empirically distinguish between wave
> function "collapse" due to GRW or due to decoherence.  It would take
> extreme isolation to suppress decoherence though.
>


Sure. GRW collapse is experimentally testable, at least in principle. But
MWI is not susceptible to any empirical test.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRKAuqJdewM7vj07iQXio0CgV3NB%3D9kNd8ogUcFzsh3zQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On 12/20/2021 5:10 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 11:53 AM Jesse Mazer wrote:

On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 7:01 PM John Clark
wrote:

Brent Meeker Wrote:

/> Yes, it's empirically supported; So's the
Schroedinger equation. But it's part of the application
of the Schroedinger equation. It's not in the equation
itself. /

> I don't know what you mean by that.

/> It's the projection postulate in the Copenhagen
interpretation that applies the Born rule. In MWI it's
the Born rule plus some kind of self-locating uncertainty
to allow for the probabilistic observations. So those are
things not in the Schroedinger equation./

I don't know how you figure that. It has been mathematically
proven that the Born rule is the only way to get probabilities
out of Schrodinger's equation such that all the probabilities
add up to 1. And Schrodinger says an electron wave can be in
any location, and in a camera/electron wave a camera will
observe the electron being in every location, and in a Brent
Meeker/camera/electron wave there will be a Brent Meeker for
every camera that sees an electron in every location.

/> No, you can't observe the Born rule to be true any more
(or less) than you can observe Schroedinger's equation to
be true./

Nonsense! Every quantum physicist alive believes the Born rule
is valid and they use it every day, and the reason they're so
confident is because the Born rule has always conform with
observations and all empirical tests , so it doesn't need a
seal of approval from a theory for us to think it's true, but
a theory may need a seal of approval from the Born Rule to
convince us that a theory is true. That's because observation
always outranks theory.

But one of the big selling points of the MWI is to give some sort
of objective picture of reality in which "measurements" have no
distinguished role, but are simply treated using the usual rules
of quantum interactions.

At one time, that might have been a point on which to prefer MWI over
Bohr's version of the CI, but that is no longer true. Modern collapse
theories do not have to distinguish particular "measurement" events,
and do not have to assume a classical superstructure . In modern fGRW,
for example, everything can be treated as quantum, and the theory is
completely objective.

fGRW has the added advantage that it is an inherently stochastic
theory. Probability is treated as a primitive notion that is not based
on anything else. MWI struggles with the concept of probability, and
while it has to reject a frequentist basis for probability, it cannot
really supply anything else. Self-locating uncertainty does not, in
itself, serve to define probability. You have to have some notion of a
random selection from a set, and that is not available in either the
Schrodinger equation or in self-locating uncertainty.

In principle one should be able to empirically distinguish between wave
function "collapse" due to GRW or due to decoherence. It would take
extreme isolation to suppress decoherence though.

Brent

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder




On 12/20/2021 4:52 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:



On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 7:01 PM John Clark  wrote:


  Brent Meeker Wrote:


/>  Yes, it's empirically supported; So's the Schroedinger
equation.  But it's part of the application of the
Schroedinger equation. It's not in the equation itself. /


> I don't know what you mean by that.


/> It's the projection postulate in the Copenhagen
interpretation that applies the Born rule.  In MWI it's the
Born rule plus some kind of self-locating uncertainty to allow
for the probabilistic observations.  So those are things not
in the Schroedinger equation./


I don't know how you figure that. It has been mathematically
proven that the Born rule is the only way to get probabilities out
of Schrodinger's equation such that all the probabilities add up
to 1. And Schrodinger says an electron wave can be in any
location, and in a camera/electron wave a camera will observe the
electron being in every location, and in a Brent
Meeker/camera/electron wave there will be a  Brent Meeker for
every camera that sees an electron in every location.

/> No, you can't observe the Born rule to be true any more (or
less) than you can observe Schroedinger's equation to be true./


Nonsense! Every quantum physicist alive believes the Born rule is
valid and they use it every day, and the reason they're so
confident is because the Born rule has always conform with
observations and all empirical tests , so it doesn't need a seal
of approval  from a theory for us to think it's true, but a theory
may need a seal of approval from the Born Rule to convince us that
a theory is true. That's because observation always outranks theory.


But one of the big selling points of the MWI is to give some sort of 
objective picture of reality in which "measurements" have no 
distinguished role, but are simply treated using the usual rules of 
quantum interactions. If you have to say "OK, I believe in the MWI 
plus Born rule for measurements" with there being no dynamical 
definition of what qualifies as a measurement, where the moments we 
call 'measurements' are just something we feed into the theory on a 
know-it-when-I-see-it basis, then this claim to objectivity is lost 
and it's not clear what theoretical appeal it has over the Copenhagen 
interpretation.


Personally I still lean towards some version of the MWI being true 
mainly because you can come up with a toy model with MWI-style 
splitting that deals with Bell style experiments in a way that 
preserves locality but doesn't require hidden variables (see 
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/1/87/htm ) but I see it as a sort of 
work in progress rather than a complete interpretation.


I agree.  MWI is useful because it motivated the research into 
decoherence theory.  But if you just take MWI+probability+basis you can 
pretty much force the Born rule.  But what does probability or basis 
mean for the 1e50 interactions taking place all around you that are not 
"measurements"...or are they?  MWI's whole point is to avoid any 
distinction between measurement and other interactions.


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/47d3c007-cf50-baa0-830e-69385f7542d5%40gmail.com.

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 11:53 AM Jesse Mazer  wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 7:01 PM John Clark  wrote:
>
>> Brent Meeker  Wrote:
>>
>> *>  Yes, it's empirically supported; So's the Schroedinger equation.  But
>>> it's part of the application of the Schroedinger equation.  It's not in the
>>> equation itself. *
>>
>>
>> > I don't know what you mean by that.
>>
>> *> It's the projection postulate in the Copenhagen interpretation that
>>> applies the Born rule.  In MWI it's the Born rule plus some kind of
>>> self-locating uncertainty to allow for the probabilistic observations.  So
>>> those are things not in the Schroedinger equation.*
>>
>>
>> I don't know how you figure that. It has been mathematically proven that
>> the Born rule is the only way to get probabilities out of Schrodinger's
>> equation such that all the probabilities add up to 1. And Schrodinger says
>> an electron wave can be in any location, and in a camera/electron wave a
>> camera will observe the electron being in every location, and in a Brent
>> Meeker/camera/electron wave there will be a  Brent Meeker for every camera
>> that sees an electron in every location.
>>
>> *> No, you can't observe the Born rule to be true any more (or less) than
>>> you can observe Schroedinger's equation to be true.*
>>
>>
>> Nonsense! Every quantum physicist alive believes the Born rule is valid
>> and they use it every day, and the reason they're so confident is because
>> the Born rule has always conform with observations and all empirical tests
>> , so it doesn't need a seal of approval  from a theory for us to think it's
>> true, but a theory may need a seal of approval from the Born Rule to
>> convince us that a theory is true. That's because observation always
>> outranks theory.
>>
>
> But one of the big selling points of the MWI is to give some sort of
> objective picture of reality in which "measurements" have no distinguished
> role, but are simply treated using the usual rules of quantum interactions.
>

At one time, that might have been a point on which to prefer MWI over
Bohr's version of the CI, but that is no longer true. Modern collapse
theories do not have to distinguish particular "measurement" events, and do
not have to assume a classical superstructure . In modern fGRW, for
example, everything can be treated as quantum, and the theory is completely
objective.

fGRW has the added advantage that it is an inherently stochastic theory.
Probability is treated as a primitive notion that is not based on
anything else. MWI struggles with the concept of probability, and while it
has to reject a frequentist basis for probability, it cannot really supply
anything else. Self-locating uncertainty does not, in itself, serve to
define probability. You have to have some notion of a random selection from
a set, and that is not available in either the Schrodinger equation or in
self-locating uncertainty.

If you have to say "OK, I believe in the MWI plus Born rule for
> measurements" with there being no dynamical definition of what qualifies as
> a measurement, where the moments we call 'measurements' are just something
> we feed into the theory on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis, then this claim
> to objectivity is lost and it's not clear what theoretical appeal it has
> over the Copenhagen interpretation.
>
> Personally I still lean towards some version of the MWI being true mainly
> because you can come up with a toy model with MWI-style splitting that
> deals with Bell style experiments in a way that preserves locality
>

No you can't.

> but doesn't require hidden variables (see
> https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/1/87/htm ) but I see it as a sort of
> work in progress rather than a complete interpretation.
>

They set up a contrast between realism and locality. This is a false
contrast, since Bell's theorem has nothing to do with any concept of
realism. Bell's concern was to show that the results of quantum mechanics
violate the assumption of locality -- there is no other escape. So called
"Einsteinian realism" has no role in Bell's argument.

If you think that MWI provides a simple local explanation of the violation
of Bell inequalities, then give the argument here -- and not in terms of
endless links to nonsense papers.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQgNOhqY1xdk_OPOK4hq3U%3DaCZBp3pbuWX6M9MsFFx-FQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On 12/20/2021 4:19 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 09:56, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 12/20/2021 7:17 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 10:38 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:

/> >> It also makes the assumption that the
eigenvalues of a measurement are realized
probabilistically./

>> What is the eigenvalueof a temperature of 72°F? It
doesn't have one. A measurement doesn't have an
eigenvalue but a matrix does, such as the one that
describes the Schrodinger Wave. And no quantum
interpretation needs to assume there is a relationship
between the square of the absolute value of that wave
and probability because it is observed to be true.

>///A temperature operator, which would be matrix, might very
well return 72degF as the eigenvalue of a state eigenvector. /

A temperature measurement taken at a particular time and place is
not a temperature operator, and a measurement is not a
probability, although the square of the absolute value of a wave
function might tell you the probability of you getting that
temperature measurement at that time and place.

/> Yes, it's empirically supported; So's the Schroedinger
equation. But it's part of the application of the
Schroedinger equation. It's not in the equation itself. /

I don't know what you mean by that.

It's the projection postulate in the Copenhagen interpretation
that applies the Born rule. In MWI it's the Born rule plus some
kind of self-locating uncertainty to allow for the probabilistic
observations. So those are things not in the Schroedinger equation.

Self-locating uncertainty is not dependent on any particular theory.
It’s the same whether it’s the Many Worlds, the Star Trek teleporter
or God that does the duplicating.

Not exactly. In those other theories you mention you can put all the
duplicates side by side and there's no sense to the question, which one
happened? They all did and there's no probability to assign to them;
because probability only makes sense when something happens and other
things don't.

Brent

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

2021-12-20 Thread Jesse Mazer

On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 7:01 PM John Clark  wrote:

> Brent Meeker  Wrote:
>
> *>  Yes, it's empirically supported; So's the Schroedinger equation.  But
>> it's part of the application of the Schroedinger equation.  It's not in the
>> equation itself. *
>
>
> > I don't know what you mean by that.
>
> *> It's the projection postulate in the Copenhagen interpretation that
>> applies the Born rule.  In MWI it's the Born rule plus some kind of
>> self-locating uncertainty to allow for the probabilistic observations.  So
>> those are things not in the Schroedinger equation.*
>
>
> I don't know how you figure that. It has been mathematically proven that
> the Born rule is the only way to get probabilities out of Schrodinger's
> equation such that all the probabilities add up to 1. And Schrodinger says
> an electron wave can be in any location, and in a camera/electron wave a
> camera will observe the electron being in every location, and in a Brent
> Meeker/camera/electron wave there will be a  Brent Meeker for every camera
> that sees an electron in every location.
>
> *> No, you can't observe the Born rule to be true any more (or less) than
>> you can observe Schroedinger's equation to be true.*
>
>
> Nonsense! Every quantum physicist alive believes the Born rule is valid
> and they use it every day, and the reason they're so confident is because
> the Born rule has always conform with observations and all empirical tests
> , so it doesn't need a seal of approval  from a theory for us to think it's
> true, but a theory may need a seal of approval from the Born Rule to
> convince us that a theory is true. That's because observation always
> outranks theory.
>

But one of the big selling points of the MWI is to give some sort of
objective picture of reality in which "measurements" have no distinguished
role, but are simply treated using the usual rules of quantum interactions.
If you have to say "OK, I believe in the MWI plus Born rule for
measurements" with there being no dynamical definition of what qualifies as
a measurement, where the moments we call 'measurements' are just something
we feed into the theory on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis, then this claim
to objectivity is lost and it's not clear what theoretical appeal it has
over the Copenhagen interpretation.

Personally I still lean towards some version of the MWI being true mainly
because you can come up with a toy model with MWI-style splitting that
deals with Bell style experiments in a way that preserves locality but
doesn't require hidden variables (see
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/1/87/htm ) but I see it as a sort of work
in progress rather than a complete interpretation.




>
>
> 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3QV08JYEScbA6V2kQq78KvmvvBLPAtqd8MNNMAUcH8VQ%40mail.gmail.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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3JkRMo45Bn6dRxi3CKpLrXbj6MCfZOGO4YY6tQSb5%2BarA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder




On 12/20/2021 4:00 PM, John Clark wrote:



  Brent Meeker Wrote:


/>  Yes, it's empirically supported; So's the Schroedinger
equation.  But it's part of the application of the Schroedinger
equation.  It's not in the equation itself. /


> I don't know what you mean by that.


/> It's the projection postulate in the Copenhagen interpretation
that applies the Born rule.  In MWI it's the Born rule plus some
kind of self-locating uncertainty to allow for the probabilistic
observations.  So those are things not in the Schroedinger equation./


I don't know how you figure that. It has been mathematically proven 
that the Born rule is the only way to get probabilities out of 
Schrodinger's equation such that all the probabilities add up to 1.


I'm well aware of that, and that's why I phrased it as "/to allow for 
the probabilistic observations". / MWI is completely deterministic, 
including the prediction that all possibilities occur.  So you have to 
have some assumption to get probabilities, such that one thing happens 
and others don't.  MWI finesses this by saying that you observe all 
possible outcomes...but in other worlds.  But the mechanism of this 
splitting, when and where it happens, is as just as hand wavy as 
Copenhagen's projection postulate.  It's of the form: This must be how 
it works because that will give the right answer.  That's not 
wrong...but neither is it an improvement.


And Schrodinger says an electron wave can be in any location, and in a 
camera/electron wave a camera will observe the electron being in every 
location, and in a Brent Meeker/camera/electron wave there will be a 
 Brent Meeker for every camera that sees an electron in every location.


That's like saying every horse in the gate is a possible winner of the 
Kentucy derby.  But that doesn't get you to probabilities without an 
assumption that one an only one will win.  Everett wants to avoid that 
assumption...which then takes self-locating uncertainty to make it 
consistent with probabilistic observations.




/> No, you can't observe the Born rule to be true any more (or
less) than you can observe Schroedinger's equation to be true./


Nonsense! Every quantum physicist alive believes the Born rule is 
valid and they use it every day, and the reason they're so confident 
is because the Born rule has always conform with observations and all 
empirical tests , so it doesn't need a seal of approval  from a theory 
for us to think it's true, but a theory may need a seal of approval 
from the Born Rule to convince us that a theory is true. That's 
because observation always outranks theory.


But observation is always finite, while theories claim infinite 
applicability.  Newton's mechanics is also used everyday, with 
confidence.  I didn't say theory made it true.  Theory only shows the 
Born rule is consistent with Hilbert space.


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/69b99b97-4539-59a5-845f-702e0eb1970d%40gmail.com.

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 09:56, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
> On 12/20/2021 7:17 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 10:38 PM Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>> *> >> It also makes the assumption that the eigenvalues of a measurement
 are realized probabilistically.*
>>>
>>>
>> >> What is the eigenvalue of a temperature of 72°F? It doesn't have one. A
>>> measurement doesn't have an eigenvalue but a matrix does, such as the one
>>> that describes the Schrodinger Wave. And no quantum interpretation needs to
>>> assume there is a relationship between the square of the absolute value of
>>> that wave and probability because it is observed to be true.
>>
>> > *A temperature operator, which would be matrix, might very well return
>> 72degF as the eigenvalue of a state eigenvector. *
>>
>
> A temperature measurement taken at a particular time and place is not a
> temperature operator, and a measurement is not a probability, although
> the square of the absolute value of a wave function might tell you the
> probability of you getting that temperature measurement at that time and
> place.
>
> *>  Yes, it's empirically supported; So's the Schroedinger equation.  But
>> it's part of the application of the Schroedinger equation.  It's not in the
>> equation itself. *
>
>
> I don't know what you mean by that.
>
> It's the projection postulate in the Copenhagen interpretation that
> applies the Born rule.  In MWI it's the Born rule plus some kind of
> self-locating uncertainty to allow for the probabilistic observations.  So
> those are things not in the Schroedinger equation.
>
Self-locating uncertainty is not dependent on any particular theory. It’s
the same whether it’s the Many Worlds, the Star Trek teleporter or God that
does the duplicating.

> >> No quantum interpretation needs to derive the Schrodinger Equation nor
>>> does it need to be assumed because it can be experimentally verified to
>>> be true. And no quantum interpretation is inconsistent with
>>> observation, at least not so far.
>>>
>>
>> *>It can't be experimentally verified that the other world branches exist
>> *
>
>
> But an astronomical number, or even an infinite number, of other world
> branches is not inconsistent with experiment or observation, and if you
> want to hypothesize about what's really going on at the deepest level of
> reality while making the fewest possible assumptions then Many Worlds is
> your best bet. At least it's the best bet anyone has come up with so far.
>
>
>> *> and the Schrodinger equation cannot be verified except statistically
>> by assuming the Born rule.  *
>
>
> I must insist yet again that the Born Rule is *NOT *assumed to be true
> nor is it required to be derived to be true because we can do far better
> than either one of those two things. We can observe the Born Rule to be
> true.
>
> No, you can't observe the Born rule to be true any more (or less) than you
> can observe Schroedinger's equation to be true.  They are theories that
> predict a result in every time and place, past and future.  If they fail,
> even on a set of measure zero, in this infinitude they are invalidated.
> Every theory must go beyond what has been observed to be useful...that's
> the whole point of having theories instead of just catalogues of
> observations.
>
> 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/4d7d7228-47ef-41a5-4da3-7af016daad32%40gmail.com
> 
> .
>
-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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/CAH%3D2ypVpeB5Vtnem%3DS6FdFWUyd-q83JiCbJxjzECx%3D2TxGEWnA%40mail.gmail.com.

Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

Brent Meeker  Wrote:

*>  Yes, it's empirically supported; So's the Schroedinger equation.  But
> it's part of the application of the Schroedinger equation.  It's not in the
> equation itself. *


> I don't know what you mean by that.

*> It's the projection postulate in the Copenhagen interpretation that
> applies the Born rule.  In MWI it's the Born rule plus some kind of
> self-locating uncertainty to allow for the probabilistic observations.  So
> those are things not in the Schroedinger equation.*


I don't know how you figure that. It has been mathematically proven that
the Born rule is the only way to get probabilities out of Schrodinger's
equation such that all the probabilities add up to 1. And Schrodinger says
an electron wave can be in any location, and in a camera/electron wave a
camera will observe the electron being in every location, and in a Brent
Meeker/camera/electron wave there will be a  Brent Meeker for every camera
that sees an electron in every location.

*> No, you can't observe the Born rule to be true any more (or less) than
> you can observe Schroedinger's equation to be true.*


Nonsense! Every quantum physicist alive believes the Born rule is valid and
they use it every day, and the reason they're so confident is because the
Born rule has always conform with observations and all empirical tests , so
it doesn't need a seal of approval  from a theory for us to think it's
true, but a theory may need a seal of approval from the Born Rule to
convince us that a theory is true. That's because observation always
outranks theory.

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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3QV08JYEScbA6V2kQq78KvmvvBLPAtqd8MNNMAUcH8VQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On 12/20/2021 7:17 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 10:38 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:

/> >> It also makes the assumption that the eigenvalues
of a measurement are realized probabilistically./

>> What is the eigenvalueof a temperature of 72°F? It doesn't
have one. A measurement doesn't have an eigenvalue but a
matrix does, such as the one that describes the Schrodinger
Wave. And no quantum interpretation needs to assume there is
a relationship between the square of the absolute value of
that wave and probability because it is observed to be true.

>///A temperature operator, which would be matrix, might very well
return 72degF as the eigenvalue of a state eigenvector. /

A temperature measurement taken at a particular time and place is not
a temperature operator, and a measurement is not a probability,
although the square of the absolute value of a wave function might
tell you the probability of you getting that temperature measurement
at that time and place.

/> Yes, it's empirically supported; So's the Schroedinger
equation. But it's part of the application of the Schroedinger
equation. It's not in the equation itself. /

I don't know what you mean by that.

It's the projection postulate in the Copenhagen interpretation that
applies the Born rule. In MWI it's the Born rule plus some kind of
self-locating uncertainty to allow for the probabilistic observations.
So those are things not in the Schroedinger equation.

>> No quantum interpretation needs to derive the Schrodinger
Equation nor does it need to be assumed because it can be
experimentally verified to be true. And no quantum
interpretation is inconsistent with observation, at least not
so far.

/>It can't be experimentally verified that the other world
branches exist /

But an astronomical number, or even an infinite number, of other world
branches is not inconsistent with experiment or observation, and if
you want to hypothesize about what's really going on at the deepest
level of reality while making the fewest possible assumptions then
Many Worlds is your best bet. At least it's the best bet anyone has
come up with so far.

/> and the Schrodinger equation cannot be verified except
statistically by assuming the Born rule. /

I must insist yet again that theBorn Ruleis *NOT *assumed to be true
nor is it required to be derived to be true because we can do far
better than either one of those two things. We can observe the Born
Rule to be true.

No, you can't observe the Born rule to be true any more (or less) than
you can observe Schroedinger's equation to be true. They are theories
that predict a result in every time and place, past and future. If they
fail, even on a set of measure zero, in this infinitude they are
invalidated. Every theory must go beyond what has been observed to be
useful...that's the whole point of having theories instead of just
catalogues of observations.

Brent

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

The Born rule, understood as probabilities are predicted by state vector
amplitudes squared, is not a problem. Gleason's theorem shows that this
is the only mathematically consistent probability measure on a Hilbert
space. The other part of the Born rule, that QM results/are
probabilistic and depend only on the state vector/, does /not/ follow
from Schroedinger's equation, although they are natural and well tested
hypotheses.

Where I have doubts about Everett and many-worlds is (1) the many-worlds
are NOT observable and have no empirical content and (2) the
diagonalization of the density matrix seems to beg the question of how
the Schroedinger equation defines a measurement just as much as the
projection postulate. Nobody writes down the Hamiltonian of the
instrument and the interaction explicitly and applies the Schroedinger
equation; they just assume the Hamiltonian of the instrument and the
interaction are such as to act like a projection operator. Dieter Zeh
has suggested that there is a kind quantum Darwinism that produces this
result, but I've not seen an explicit calculation showing it.

Brent

On 12/20/2021 3:54 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 10:04 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:

/>>> The Born Rule cannot be derived from the Schrodinger
equation; it has to be added as a further independent
assumption. So it is not true that Many Worlds makes only
one assumption./

>> No quantum interpretation needs to derive the Schrodinger
Equation nor does it need to be assumedbecause it can be
experimentally verified to be true. And no quantum
interpretationis inconsistent with observation, at least not
so far.

/> Why do we need any theory at all then? We just have to observe
the experimental results and they are true. Perhaps science is
about understanding the experimental results, not just accepting
them as the truth./

Some productive scientists are satisfied with the Shut Up And
Calculate quantum "interpretation" and that's fine, there is no
disputing matters of taste, but some who don't dislike philosophy
would like a bit more. The point I was trying to make was that nobody
"assumes" the Born Rule anymore than somebody assumes that a body at
rest or moving at a constant speed in a straight line will remain at
rest or keep moving in a straight line at constant speed unless it is
acted upon by a force. Neither the Born Rule or Newton's first law of
motion were "assumed" to be true, they were OBSERVED to be true , and
in science observation always outranks theory. If a theory concludes
that a certain observation can't occur but it is observed to occur
then the theory is wrong. A theory needs to be confirmed by
observation, but an observation doesn't need to be confirmed by a theory.

Unfortunately none of the quantum interpretations conflicts with
observation so to decide on a favorite one should pick the one that
makes the fewest assumptions (*NOT* the one that produces the simplest
outcome). And that's why I like Many Worlds, it only makes one
assumption. And that's why I think superdeterminism is the very worst
quantum interpretation possible, it needs, quite literally, an
infinite number of assumptions to work. If that was the best anybody
could come up with I'd stick with Shut Up And Calculate, but
fortunately we can do better.

Of courseI can't denyit would be great if a quantum
interpretationcould lead us straight to the Born Rule. It may be
premature to claim victory but I think Many Worlds has made much more
progress towards accomplishing that goal than any other:

Many Worlds, the Born Rule, and Self-Locating Uncertainty

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

mwc

--
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/CAJPayv3w0msj6mPxTBwCUr9mwV40AjAVwwHyrHvzOy9eHuNbNw%40mail.gmail.com
.

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On 12/20/2021 1:03 AM, smitra wrote:

On 20-12-2021 03:05, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 12:23 PM John Clark
wrote:

On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 7:59 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:

On 12/19/2021 5:25 AM, John Clark wrote:
By contrast the Many Worlds Theory only makes one assumption,
Schrodinger's Equation means what it says. So Many Worlds wins.

_> It also makes the assumption that the eigenvalues of a
measurement are realized probabilistically._

What is the eigenvalue of a temperature of 72°F? It doesn't have one.
A measurement doesn't have an eigenvalue but a matrix does, such as
the one that describes the Schrodinger Wave. And no quantum
interpretation needs to assume there is a relationship between the
square of the absolute value of that wave and probability because it
is observed to be true.

The Born Rule cannot be derived from the Schrodinger equation; it has
to be added as a further independent assumption. So it is not true
that Many Worlds makes only one assumption. It requires just as many
assumptions as collapse theories.

Bruce

Yes, but with those assumptions it yields an unambiguous framework for
a fundamental theory. In case of collapse theories, you're stuck with
a phenomenological theory that cannot be improved, because you are not
allowed to describe observers and observations within the collapse
frameworks. It's a bit like the difference between statistical
mechanics and thermodynamics, if in the latter case textbooks were to
insist that you are only allowed to consider certain types of heat
engines that operate in the quasistatic limit.

Yes, but it is decoherence theory that extends the theory of measurement
beyond just phenomenological projectors. And it doesn't reach to
explaining the probabilistic nature of QM. ISTM that the steps in
Everett's account of measurement where instrument variables become
correlated with quantum system variables and cross terms form
superpositions are set to zero are almost has "hand wavy" as the CI
projection operators. They seem to be just motivated by "This must be
the way the Schroedinger equation works for macroscopic instruments in
order that we get the same answer as the CI projector after we assume
Born's rule."

Brent

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

2021-12-20 Thread Jesse Mazer

When you say the MWI + Born rule "yields an unambiguous framework for
a fundamental
theory" are you assuming the idea of probability being equal to amplitude
squared only applies to "measurements", or that it would somehow apply at
all times in the MWI? If the former there would seem to be some ambiguity
about what a "measurement" is; if the latter, I believe MWI advocates still
don't have an agreed-upon answer to the "preferred basis problem" discussed
at
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65177/is-the-preferred-basis-problem-solved

On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 4:03 AM smitra  wrote:

> On 20-12-2021 03:05, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 12:23 PM John Clark 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 7:59 PM Brent Meeker 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/19/2021 5:25 AM, John Clark wrote:
> >> By contrast the Many Worlds Theory only makes one assumption,
> >> Schrodinger's Equation means what it says. So Many Worlds wins.
> >>
> >> _> It also makes the assumption that the eigenvalues of a
> >> measurement are realized probabilistically._
> >
> > What is the eigenvalue of a temperature of 72°F? It doesn't have one.
> > A measurement doesn't have an eigenvalue but a matrix does, such as
> > the one that describes the Schrodinger Wave. And no quantum
> > interpretation needs to assume there is a relationship between the
> > square of the absolute value of that wave and probability because it
> > is observed to be true.
> >
> > The Born Rule cannot be derived from the Schrodinger equation; it has
> > to be added as a further independent assumption. So it is not true
> > that Many Worlds makes only one assumption. It requires just as many
> > assumptions as collapse theories.
> >
> > Bruce
>
> Yes, but with those assumptions it yields an unambiguous framework for a
> fundamental theory. In case of collapse theories, you're stuck with a
> phenomenological theory that cannot be improved, because you are not
> allowed to describe observers and observations within the collapse
> frameworks. It's a bit like the difference between statistical mechanics
> and thermodynamics, if in the latter case textbooks were to insist that
> you are only allowed to consider certain types of heat engines that
> operate in the quasistatic limit.
>
> Saibal
>
> >
> >> If it were not true Schrodinger's Wave would be completely useless
> >> and there would be no reason any physicist would bother to calculate
> >> it.
> >
> >  --
> > 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/CAFxXSLTFdzA%3Dg9GTTiC2aLdJZ76tHYA3Bvxo2WrrvdnAXY-QQg%40mail.gmail.com
> > [1].
> >
> >
> > Links:
> > --
> > [1]
> >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTFdzA%3Dg9GTTiC2aLdJZ76tHYA3Bvxo2WrrvdnAXY-QQg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_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/8cffa6afc016a115e5fa8bd104135059%40zonnet.nl
> .
>

-- 
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/CAPCWU3JOTt6Msg%3DXiGTpoEK8TNq3mqqWtSi-s9xgA4OPpQGRjw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 10:38 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

> *> >> It also makes the assumption that the eigenvalues of a measurement
>>> are realized probabilistically.*
>>
>>
> >> What is the eigenvalue of a temperature of 72°F? It doesn't have one. A
>> measurement doesn't have an eigenvalue but a matrix does, such as the one
>> that describes the Schrodinger Wave. And no quantum interpretation needs to
>> assume there is a relationship between the square of the absolute value of
>> that wave and probability because it is observed to be true.
>
> > *A temperature operator, which would be matrix, might very well return
> 72degF as the eigenvalue of a state eigenvector. *
>

A temperature measurement taken at a particular time and place is not a
temperature operator, and a measurement is not a probability, although the
square of the absolute value of a wave function might tell you the
probability of you getting that temperature measurement at that time and
place.

*>  Yes, it's empirically supported; So's the Schroedinger equation.  But
> it's part of the application of the Schroedinger equation.  It's not in the
> equation itself. *

I don't know what you mean by that.

>> No quantum interpretation needs to derive the Schrodinger Equation nor
>> does it need to be assumed because it can be experimentally verified to
>> be true. And no quantum interpretation is inconsistent with observation,
>> at least not so far.
>>
>
> *>It can't be experimentally verified that the other world branches exist *

But an astronomical number, or even an infinite number, of other world
branches is not inconsistent with experiment or observation, and if you
want to hypothesize about what's really going on at the deepest level of
reality while making the fewest possible assumptions then Many Worlds is
your best bet. At least it's the best bet anyone has come up with so far.

> *> and the Schrodinger equation cannot be verified except statistically by
> assuming the Born rule.  *

I must insist yet again that the Born Rule is *NOT *assumed to be true nor
is it required to be derived to be true because we can do far better than
either one of those two things. We can observe the Born Rule to be true.

*> Without the Born rule the Schroedinger equation* [...]

Without the Born rule the Schrodinger Wave Equation would be a silly
worthless equation of no interest to anyone, but thanks to observation we
know for a fact that the Born Rule is true, and that makes Schrodinger's
Equation very important indeed.
John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

swq

>

-- 
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/CAJPayv1Azc%2BzqgkBQaoz-b03Fo3qJxw2BdB0rokfTTC2TWcxvw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 10:04 PM Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

*>>> The Born Rule cannot be derived from the Schrodinger equation; it has
>>> to be added as a further independent assumption. So it is not true that
>>> Many Worlds makes only one assumption.*
>>>
>>
>> >> No quantum interpretation needs to derive the Schrodinger Equation
>> nor does it need to be assumed because it can be experimentally verified
>> to be true. And no quantum interpretation is inconsistent with
>> observation, at least not so far.
>>
>
> *> Why do we need any theory at all then? We just have to observe the
> experimental results and they are true. Perhaps science is about
> understanding the experimental results, not just accepting them as the
> truth.*
>

Some productive scientists are satisfied with the Shut Up And Calculate
quantum "interpretation" and that's fine, there is no disputing matters of
taste, but some who don't dislike philosophy would like a bit more. The
point I was trying to make was that nobody "assumes" the Born Rule anymore
than somebody assumes that a body at rest or moving at a constant speed in
a straight line will remain at rest or keep moving in a straight line at
constant speed unless it is acted upon by a force. Neither the Born Rule or
Newton's first law of motion were "assumed" to be true, they were OBSERVED
to be true , and in science observation always outranks theory. If a theory
concludes that a certain observation can't occur but it is observed to
occur then the theory is wrong. A theory needs to be confirmed by
observation, but an observation doesn't need to be confirmed by a theory.

Unfortunately none of the quantum interpretations conflicts with
observation so to decide on a favorite one should pick the one that makes
the fewest assumptions (*NOT* the one that produces the simplest outcome).
And that's why I like Many Worlds, it only makes one assumption. And that's
why I think superdeterminism is the very worst quantum interpretation
possible, it needs, quite literally, an infinite number of assumptions to
work. If that was the best anybody could come up with I'd stick with Shut
Up And Calculate, but fortunately we can do better.

Of course I can't deny it would be great if a quantum interpretation could
lead us straight to the Born Rule. It may be premature to claim victory but I
think Many Worlds has made much more progress towards accomplishing that
goal than any other:

Many Worlds, the Born Rule, and Self-Locating Uncertainty

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

mwc

-- 
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/CAJPayv3w0msj6mPxTBwCUr9mwV40AjAVwwHyrHvzOy9eHuNbNw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder

On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 7:29 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Without invoking MWI which I adore, let us focus upon the less grandiose
> and ask can one entangle a tardigrade or can't one?
>
>
> https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-claim-they-ve-entangled-a-tardigrade-with-qubits-but-did-they
>

It seems that they did not.

https://www.cnet.com/news/no-tardigrades-have-not-been-quantum-entangled-with-a-qubit/

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRiTGDivdXRyaY-gDbpk-0jSK5_kqSC61%2BC414trJBPZw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Superdeterminism And Sabine Hossenfelder