Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Bruce Kellett]

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 12:05 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 8:07 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> >> 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?*
>>
>
> From the square root of the absolute value of a complex wave function
> produced by Schrodinger's equation. You don't need Many Worlds or any other
> quantum interpretation to find the correct probability, Shut Up And
> Calculate will give you that,  you only need Many Worlds if you wanna
> figure out what must be going on under the hood that enables an absurd
> theory like quantum mechanics to make predictions that actually turn out to
> be correct.
>
> *> 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.*
>>
>
> Obviously.  Change the radioactive source to an element with a different
> half life and you'll change the probability, and you will also change the
> probability if you change the amount of time the cat is in the box.
>
> * > 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.*
>>
>
> That would be true only if the cat had one and only one property, the
> alive/dead property. But, except for Black Holes, all macroscopic objects
> have an astronomical number of properties and most of them are not binary,
> however in the cat thought experiment you're only interested in one of them
> and it is binary, the alive/dead property. You're not interested in the
> precise position or momentum of a particular electron in the cat's left
> toenail. So there are an astronomical number of cats, and there are an
> astronomical number of Bruce Kelletts, and all of them are in very slightly
> different quantum states, but the astronomical number of Bruce Kelletts who
> observe a living cat when the box is opened is 9 times larger than the
> astronomical number Bruce Kelletts who observe a dead cat.  So before the
> box was opened all the Bruce Kelletts would expect to see a living cat, but
> 10% of them would be surprised.
>

None of that is in the Schrodinger equation. The infinities are all of your
own making,

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/CAFxXSLRyaGgH3VR3etd8WbcVLnqqxZMnLSka-KAvTCu1yBPDDw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 12:51 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:


> *> That seems to entail other problems.  1/3 of infinity is the same size
> as infinity.*
>

That's one reason I suspect that space-time is discrete, not continuous.
But even if it's not all hope may not be lost, after all in quantum
electrodynamics at least, Richard Feynman found a way to get infinities to
cancel out so he could perform calculations and get finite answers that
turn out to be correct. Some mathematicians complain that Feynman's method
is not rigorous enough and so might contain inconsistencies, but we know
for a fact that it works and I just don't believe that quantum
electrodynamics is inherently paradoxical. Unfortunately Feynman's method
doesn't work if the strong force is involved, nor does it work with gravity
when things get very small and very dense, but maybe someday we will find
something like it that will allow us to deal with infinities more
generally.

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

ixe

-- 
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/CAJPayv2naNMf0%3D4m_dCvFOo7HkFLH%2B98-CUXi%2BgcO%3DC2%3DhdTUA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

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

>> 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?*
>

>From the square root of the absolute value of a complex wave function
produced by Schrodinger's equation. You don't need Many Worlds or any other
quantum interpretation to find the correct probability, Shut Up And
Calculate will give you that,  you only need Many Worlds if you wanna
figure out what must be going on under the hood that enables an absurd
theory like quantum mechanics to make predictions that actually turn out to
be correct.

*> 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.*
>

Obviously.  Change the radioactive source to an element with a different
half life and you'll change the probability, and you will also change the
probability if you change the amount of time the cat is in the box.

* > 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.*
>

That would be true only if the cat had one and only one property, the
alive/dead property. But, except for Black Holes, all macroscopic objects
have an astronomical number of properties and most of them are not binary,
however in the cat thought experiment you're only interested in one of them
and it is binary, the alive/dead property. You're not interested in the
precise position or momentum of a particular electron in the cat's left
toenail. So there are an astronomical number of cats, and there are an
astronomical number of Bruce Kelletts, and all of them are in very slightly
different quantum states, but the astronomical number of Bruce Kelletts who
observe a living cat when the box is opened is 9 times larger than the
astronomical number Bruce Kelletts who observe a dead cat.  So before the
box was opened all the Bruce Kelletts would expect to see a living cat, but
10% of them would be surprised.


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

y9%

-- 
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/CAJPayv3fN8eE%3DO4cWD--ax6YJ-VBn1Rz9PxboEr7KcPsDiYMzQ%40mail.gmail.com.