Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

2023-11-26 Thread Brent Meeker 



On 11/26/2023 6:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 8:07 PM Bruce Kellett  
wrote:


On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 9:55 AM John Clark 
wrote:

On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 5:35 PM Bruce Kellett
 wrote:

>>> /and how do they instantiate the probabilities
that we measure.
/


>> There is one observer for every quantum state
Schrodinger's cat is in.


/>That is exactly the problem. That would suggest that the
two outcomes (dead or alive) are equally likely. But it
can easily be arranged that one outcome is more probable
than the other. MWI cannot account for unequal probabilities./


There are a googolplex number of Bruce Kelletts, all of which
are in very slightly different quantum states but they all
observe that, although Schrodinger's cat is in slightly
different quantum states, the cat is alive in all of them. And
there are 3 googolplexes of Bruce Kelletts, all of which are
in very slightly different quantum states but they all observe
that, although Schrodinger's cat is in slightly different
quantum states, the cat is dead in all of them. Therefore if
Bruce Kellett had no other information than before he opened
the box he would bet that there is only one chance in four he
would see an alive cat when the box was opened.


Nonsense. Where did the 3:1 ratio come from? I know the decay rate
of the radioactive source. I can arrange to open the box when
there is only a 10% chance that the atom has decayed. In that case
I clearly have a 90% chance of seeing a live cat when I open the
box. Similarly, I can arrange for any probability between zero and
one of seeing a live cat. Whereas, if there is always a live cat
branch and a dead cat branch, my probability of seeing a live cat
is always 50%, contrary to the laws of radioactive decay.


The time the decay occurs is roughly continuous over the hour of the 
experiment. Thus the dead cat will have been dead for a random period 
between 0 and 1 hours from the time it entered the box. You will find 
the observed temperature of the cat will be a continuous variable 
correlated to the time of the decay, and this requires an infinity of 
possible observers.
That seems to entail other problems.  1/3 of infinity is the same size 
as infinity.


Brent


Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgtYO0DDpC-yd2N-Fxs4G8jvaUdbYMiQZLq%3DeLUAFynFA%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/64da9449-d467-4778-be1e-e9288565fb71%40gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

2023-11-26 Thread Jason Resch 
On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 8:07 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 9:55 AM John Clark  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 5:35 PM Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>>
> *and how do they instantiate the probabilities that we measure.*
>

 >> There is one observer for every quantum state Schrodinger's cat is
 in.

>>>
>>> *>That is exactly the problem. That would suggest that the two outcomes
>>> (dead or alive) are equally likely. But it can easily be arranged that one
>>> outcome is more probable than the other. MWI cannot account for unequal
>>> probabilities.*
>>>
>>
>> There are a googolplex number of Bruce Kelletts, all of which are in very
>> slightly different quantum states but they all observe that, although
>> Schrodinger's cat is in slightly different quantum states, the cat is alive
>> in all of them. And there are 3 googolplexes of Bruce Kelletts, all of
>> which are in very slightly different quantum states but they all observe
>> that, although Schrodinger's cat is in slightly different quantum states,
>> the cat is dead in all of them. Therefore if Bruce Kellett had no other
>> information than before he opened the box he would bet that there is
>> only one chance in four he would see an alive cat when the box was opened.
>>
>
> Nonsense. Where did the 3:1 ratio come from? I know the decay rate of the
> radioactive source. I can arrange to open the box when there is only a 10%
> chance that the atom has decayed. In that case I clearly have a 90% chance
> of seeing a live cat when I open the box. Similarly, I can arrange for any
> probability between zero and one of seeing a live cat. Whereas, if there is
> always a live cat branch and a dead cat branch, my probability of seeing a
> live cat is always 50%, contrary to the laws of radioactive decay.
>

The time the decay occurs is roughly continuous over the hour of the
experiment. Thus the dead cat will have been dead for a random period
between 0 and 1 hours from the time it entered the box. You will find the
observed temperature of the cat will be a continuous variable correlated to
the time of the decay, and this requires an infinity of possible observers.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgtYO0DDpC-yd2N-Fxs4G8jvaUdbYMiQZLq%3DeLUAFynFA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

2023-11-26 Thread Bruce Kellett 
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 9:55 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 5:35 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> >>>
 *and how do they instantiate the probabilities that we measure.*

>>>
>>> >> There is one observer for every quantum state Schrodinger's cat is
>>> in.
>>>
>>
>> *>That is exactly the problem. That would suggest that the two outcomes
>> (dead or alive) are equally likely. But it can easily be arranged that one
>> outcome is more probable than the other. MWI cannot account for unequal
>> probabilities.*
>>
>
> There are a googolplex number of Bruce Kelletts, all of which are in very
> slightly different quantum states but they all observe that, although
> Schrodinger's cat is in slightly different quantum states, the cat is alive
> in all of them. And there are 3 googolplexes of Bruce Kelletts, all of
> which are in very slightly different quantum states but they all observe
> that, although Schrodinger's cat is in slightly different quantum states,
> the cat is dead in all of them. Therefore if Bruce Kellett had no other
> information than before he opened the box he would bet that there is only
> one chance in four he would see an alive cat when the box was opened.
>

Nonsense. Where did the 3:1 ratio come from? I know the decay rate of the
radioactive source. I can arrange to open the box when there is only a 10%
chance that the atom has decayed. In that case I clearly have a 90% chance
of seeing a live cat when I open the box. Similarly, I can arrange for any
probability between zero and one of seeing a live cat. Whereas, if there is
always a live cat branch and a dead cat branch, my probability of seeing a
live cat is always 50%, contrary to the laws of radioactive decay.

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/CAFxXSLQgX7dDF200sBwV29m%2B6x3c0ju5MXFE0oNOpnksqxnfbQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

2023-11-26 Thread John Clark 
On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 5:35 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

>>>
>>> *and how do they instantiate the probabilities that we measure.*
>>>
>>
>> >> There is one observer for every quantum state Schrodinger's cat is in.
>>
>
> *>That is exactly the problem. That would suggest that the two outcomes
> (dead or alive) are equally likely. But it can easily be arranged that one
> outcome is more probable than the other. MWI cannot account for unequal
> probabilities.*
>

There are a googolplex number of Bruce Kelletts, all of which are in very
slightly different quantum states but they all observe that, although
Schrodinger's cat is in slightly different quantum states, the cat is alive
in all of them. And there are 3 googolplexes of Bruce Kelletts, all of
which are in very slightly different quantum states but they all observe
that, although Schrodinger's cat is in slightly different quantum states,
the cat is dead in all of them. Therefore if Bruce Kellett had no other
information than before he opened the box he would bet that there is only
one chance in four he would see an alive cat when the box was opened.

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

cod

-- 
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/CAJPayv38V%2BmWfPT-m6ipvpTkWZwMMQMch6i4gh%2Bxc5k9TJq4Kw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

2023-11-26 Thread Bruce Kellett 
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 7:19 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 2:52 PM Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
> >> Copenhagen does not explain why some are more real than others, Many
>>> Worlds says the obvious answer to this dilemma is that they are all equally
>>> real, so there is nothing that needs explaining.
>>
>>
>> * >Except how many of them are they,*
>>
>
> Either an astronomical number to an astronomical power of universes or an
> infinite number of universes depending on if space-time is continuous or
> discrete which today nobody knows.
>
> *> when exactly is the split,*
>>
>
> The split starts when a change is made and spreads outward at either the
> speed of light or is instantaneous, it makes no difference which, the
> results are the same either way so you can think about it in the way you
> prefer.
>
>
>> >
>> *and how do they instantiate the probabilities that we measure.*
>>
>
> There is one observer for every quantum state Schrodinger's cat is in.
>

That is exactly the problem. That would suggest that the two outcomes (dead
or alive) are equally likely. But it can easily be arranged that one
outcome is more probable than the other. MWI cannot account for unequal
probabilities.

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/CAFxXSLQj%2BWC%3D2aizWQH8ROzDKOSSAdSu5A_rGLsCQ1VyT1xS5g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

2023-11-26 Thread John Clark 
On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 2:52 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>> Copenhagen does not explain why some are more real than others, Many
>> Worlds says the obvious answer to this dilemma is that they are all equally
>> real, so there is nothing that needs explaining.
>
>
> * >Except how many of them are they,*
>

Either an astronomical number to an astronomical power of universes or an
infinite number of universes depending on if space-time is continuous or
discrete which today nobody knows.

*> when exactly is the split,*
>

The split starts when a change is made and spreads outward at either the
speed of light or is instantaneous, it makes no difference which, the
results are the same either way so you can think about it in the way you
prefer.


> >
> *and how do they instantiate the probabilities that we measure.*
>

There is one observer for every quantum state Schrodinger's cat is in.

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

1zp

-- 
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/CAJPayv3HUG_N1V4Eh5CUg9ga_b7v%2B9yH9FaptkxvZLrXx%2BqoRA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

2023-11-26 Thread Brent Meeker 



On 11/26/2023 5:08 AM, John Clark wrote:


On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 5:14 PM Brent Meeker  
wrote:


/> Everything we know about QM comes from observations, each of
which is seeing a result, not a superposition of results. /


But nothing we observe in the quantum realmcan be predicted or 
explained unless we use theories that postulate that a superposition 
of resultsmust exist. Or to put it another way, the fact that those 
theories produce correct results comes as close to proving as science 
ever gets thata superposition of resultsdo exist, or at least they did 
until something called a "measurement" occurs.


/> This is the basis of the Copenhagen interpretation.  Do you
disagree with any of that?/


Copenhagenneeds an additional postulate that Many Worlds does not, 
Copenhagen needs something called "measurement" that somehow causes 
most of those results to be completely obliterated so that only the 
"real" one remains.


Which is exactly what is observed.

But Copenhagen does not explain what a "measurement" is, nor does it 
explain what attribute the "real" one has that allows it to survive 
the brutal measurement process that the other results do not have.


No, but in the interventing century decoherence has explained that; 
something MWI takes advantage of too.


Copenhagendoes not explain why some are more real than others, Many 
Worlds says the obvious answer to this dilemma is that they are all 
equally real, so there is nothing that needs explaining.


Except how many of them are they, when exactly is the split, and how do 
they instantiate the probabilities that we measure.


Brent


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


nf)




Brent


iyu

-- 
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/CAJPayv1C2QL1yRn9XpEwyL9ea1dqK8wPwE_CfuxkbLOLsS%2BzaQ%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/9d83-e864-4023-a8cf-85ec07c0989c%40gmail.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/CAJPayv0ym-k%3DvTroJtV4Low0d3oeBL4BMjRYcksP2bR_Cazuxw%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/cccbb894-34bb-4905-8b9c-6a6d0e3c5b12%40gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

2023-11-26 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List 
It seems that, on page 270 of this paper, Feynman said something about Everett 
and his "universal wave-function" 
https://edition-open-sources.org/media/sources/5/Sources5.pdf

s.

__

See also Zeh here  https://arxiv.org/abs/0804.3348

s.

i

 

 

 

-- 
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/1464856268.1091525.1701018343689%40mail1.libero.it.

This is probably a joke but ...

2023-11-26 Thread John Clark 
Yesterday Joshua Bach, an AI researcher, wrote the following. I am 85% sure
he was joking:

"*Word on the street is that q* proved p==np, and the board drama was only
a decoy to divert everyone's eyes from 750 OpenAI employees cashing out to
buy a seven year supply of ammo and groceries*."

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

u8y

-- 
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/CAJPayv3nNdbTmnit8oQ9Jnpd9og5YOZ%2BrquhVxcfo-1xYMO%3DxA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

2023-11-26 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List 
This started with my point that we test, observer, infer, write papers, attend 
conferences, discuss and write down theories, all in a classical world.  
Everything we know about QM comes from observations, each of which is seeing a 
result, not a superposition of results.  This is the basis of the Copenhagen 
interpretation.  Do you disagree with any of that?

Brent


It seems that, on page 270 of this paper, Feynman said something about Everett 
and his "universal wave-function"

https://edition-open-sources.org/media/sources/5/Sources5.pdf

s.

iyu
 
 

--
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 
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1C2QL1yRn9XpEwyL9ea1dqK8wPwE_CfuxkbLOLsS%2BzaQ%40mail.gmail.com
 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1C2QL1yRn9XpEwyL9ea1dqK8wPwE_CfuxkbLOLsS%2BzaQ%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 
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9d83-e864-4023-a8cf-85ec07c0989c%40gmail.com
 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9d83-e864-4023-a8cf-85ec07c0989c%40gmail.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/1668238914.1082895.1701009106252%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

2023-11-26 Thread John Clark 
On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 5:14 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:


>  * > Everything we know about QM comes from observations, each of which
> is seeing a result, not a superposition of results. *
>

But nothing we observe in the quantum realm can be predicted or explained
unless we use theories that postulate that a superposition of results must
exist. Or to put it another way, the fact that those theories produce
correct results comes as close to proving as science ever gets that a
superposition of results do exist, or at least they did until something
called a "measurement" occurs.



> *> This is the basis of the Copenhagen interpretation.  Do you disagree
> with any of that?*
>

Copenhagen needs an additional postulate that Many Worlds does not,
Copenhagen needs something called "measurement" that somehow causes most of
those results to be completely obliterated so that only the "real" one
remains. But Copenhagen does not explain what a "measurement" is, nor does
it explain what attribute the "real" one has that allows it to survive the
brutal measurement process that the other results do not have. Copenhagen
does not explain why some are more real than others, Many Worlds says the
obvious answer to this dilemma is that they are all equally real, so there
is nothing that needs explaining.

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

nf)





>
> Brent
>
> iyu
>
>
> --
> 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/CAJPayv1C2QL1yRn9XpEwyL9ea1dqK8wPwE_CfuxkbLOLsS%2BzaQ%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/9d83-e864-4023-a8cf-85ec07c0989c%40gmail.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/CAJPayv0ym-k%3DvTroJtV4Low0d3oeBL4BMjRYcksP2bR_Cazuxw%40mail.gmail.com.