date:20231128

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 11:32, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:25 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 11:17, Bruce Kellett 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:13 AM Stathis Papaioannou <
 stath...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 10:53, Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:40 AM Stathis Papaioannou <
>> stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 09:34, Bruce Kellett 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:29 AM John Clark 
 wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:14 PM Bruce Kellett <
> bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> *> Given a long series of N spin measurements, MWI says that there
>> is always one person who sees N spin-ups. Since this observation is
>> certain, it has probability one. Whereas the Born probability of 
>> seeing N
>> ups is 1/2^N. A clear contradiction.*
>
>
>
>  The probability that Bruce Kellett will see N spin-ups is indeed
> one. However the probability that you will see  N spin-ups is
> not. As I mentioned before, for this sort of discussion the way the 
> English
> language handles personal pronouns needs to be modified.
>

 It is not a question of whether you will see the N spin-ups, or
 whether it is just one copy of Bruce Kellett that will see this. The
 incompatibility arises from the fact that the series of N spin-ups
 necessarily exits in MWI, where it only has probability 1/2^N from the 
 Born
 rule.

>>>
>>> If you lived in any sort of universe where you were duplicated,
>>> there would be some probability that you would see different outcomes.
>>>
>>
>> So what? The problem you have is that you have changed the rules of
>> the theory -- from a theory about what exists, to a theory about what you
>> will see. Since you will only ever see one outcome, one world, you have
>> reduced it from a theory of many worlds to a theory of a single world --
>> the world you will see!
>>
>
> Obviously the Born rule under MWI is about the probability of what
> outcome you will see.
>

 As I pointed out, if it is a theory about what you will see, then it is
 a single world theory, since you will only ever see just one world. Hence
 the incompatibility with Many worlds, which is a theory about what exists.

>>>
>>> If I pull a coloured ball out of a basket, there is a probability of
>>> what ball I will see and a theory about what balls exist.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Not really comparable. The probability of what ball you get is distinct
>> from the fact that the ball exists. MWI is not a theory about what you will
>> see. Any theory about that is necessarily a single world theory since you
>> only see one ball. MWI is a theory about what exists, and its claim is that
>> many worlds all exist with probability one.
>>
>
> The Born rule allows you to calculate the probability of what outcome you
> will see in a Universe where all outcomes occur.
>

You are still conflating incompatible theories. The Born rule is a rule for
calculating probabilities from the wave function -- it says nothing about
worlds or existence. MWI is a theory about the existence of many worlds.
These theories are incompatible, and should not be conflated.

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/CAFxXSLSRBKq740t5br-oif%3Dxnb7eCUAY%2BY8ou72k8eS6DbmzLQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 11:32, Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:25 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 11:17, Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:13 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 10:53, Bruce Kellett 
 wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:40 AM Stathis Papaioannou <
> stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 09:34, Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:29 AM John Clark 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:14 PM Bruce Kellett <
 bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote:

 *> Given a long series of N spin measurements, MWI says that there
> is always one person who sees N spin-ups. Since this observation is
> certain, it has probability one. Whereas the Born probability of 
> seeing N
> ups is 1/2^N. A clear contradiction.*



  The probability that Bruce Kellett will see N spin-ups is indeed
 one. However the probability that you will see  N spin-ups is not.
 As I mentioned before, for this sort of discussion the way the English
 language handles personal pronouns needs to be modified.

>>>
>>> It is not a question of whether you will see the N spin-ups, or
>>> whether it is just one copy of Bruce Kellett that will see this. The
>>> incompatibility arises from the fact that the series of N spin-ups
>>> necessarily exits in MWI, where it only has probability 1/2^N from the 
>>> Born
>>> rule.
>>>
>>
>> If you lived in any sort of universe where you were duplicated, there
>> would be some probability that you would see different outcomes.
>>
>
> So what? The problem you have is that you have changed the rules of
> the theory -- from a theory about what exists, to a theory about what you
> will see. Since you will only ever see one outcome, one world, you have
> reduced it from a theory of many worlds to a theory of a single world --
> the world you will see!
>

 Obviously the Born rule under MWI is about the probability of what
 outcome you will see.

>>>
>>> As I pointed out, if it is a theory about what you will see, then it is
>>> a single world theory, since you will only ever see just one world. Hence
>>> the incompatibility with Many worlds, which is a theory about what exists.
>>>
>>
>> If I pull a coloured ball out of a basket, there is a probability of what
>> ball I will see and a theory about what balls exist.
>>
>
>
> Not really comparable. The probability of what ball you get is distinct
> from the fact that the ball exists. MWI is not a theory about what you will
> see. Any theory about that is necessarily a single world theory since you
> only see one ball. MWI is a theory about what exists, and its claim is that
> many worlds all exist with probability one.
>

The Born rule allows you to calculate the probability of what outcome you
will see in a Universe where all outcomes occur.


-- 
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%3D2ypW2%2Br3b2cGOi-CXAJLY%2B_ExLtJgfMgDLeFpp_%2B4%3DZJYXQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On 11/28/2023 4:32 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:25 AM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 11:17, Bruce Kellett
wrote:

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:13 AM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 10:53, Bruce Kellett
wrote:

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:40 AM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 09:34, Bruce Kellett
wrote:

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:29 AM John Clark
wrote:

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:14 PM Bruce
Kellett wrote:

/> Given a long series of N spin
measurements, MWI says that there is
always one person who sees N spin-ups.
Since this observation is certain, it
has probability one. Whereas the Born
probability of seeing N ups is 1/2^N.
A clear contradiction./

The probability thatBruce Kellett will
see N spin-upsis indeed one. However the
probability that you will see N spin-upsis
not. As I mentioned before, for this sort
of discussion the way the English language
handles personal pronouns needs to be
modified.

It is not a question of whether you will see
the N spin-ups, or whether it is just one copy
of Bruce Kellett that will see this. The
incompatibility arises from the fact that the
series of N spin-ups necessarily exits in MWI,
where it only has probability 1/2^N from the
Born rule.

If you lived in any sort of universe where you
were duplicated, there would be some probability
that you would see different outcomes.

So what? The problem you have is that you have changed
the rules of the theory -- from a theory about what
exists, to a theory about what you will see. Since you
will only ever see one outcome, one world, you have
reduced it from a theory of many worlds to a theory of
a single world -- the world you will see!

Obviously the Born rule under MWI is about the probability
of what outcome you will see.

As I pointed out, if it is a theory about what you will see,
then it is a single world theory, since you will only ever see
just one world. Hence the incompatibility with Many worlds,
which is a theory about what exists.

If I pull a coloured ball out of a basket, there is a probability
of what ball I will see and a theory about what balls exist.

Not really comparable. The probability of what ball you get is
distinct from the fact that the ball exists. MWI is not a theory about
what you will see. Any theory about that is necessarily a single world
theory since you only see one ball. MWI is a theory about what exists,
and its claim is that many worlds all exist with probability one.

Bruce

For comparison you could posit a theory, MWI*, which is MWI plus the
provision that only one exists with probability as defined by the Born
rule. Would MWI* be a different interpretation than modern-CI? In
other words, is the */only/* difference between the interpretations the
posited existence of a virtually infinite number of orthogonal worlds in
which we are duplicated and see different results? Is that the
important "under the hood" part that JC values?

--
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/4a36d448-05e5-4d7d-a069-b38731502d1e%40gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:25 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 11:17, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:13 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 10:53, Bruce Kellett 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:40 AM Stathis Papaioannou <
 stath...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 09:34, Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:29 AM John Clark 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:14 PM Bruce Kellett 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> *> Given a long series of N spin measurements, MWI says that there
 is always one person who sees N spin-ups. Since this observation is
 certain, it has probability one. Whereas the Born probability of 
 seeing N
 ups is 1/2^N. A clear contradiction.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  The probability that Bruce Kellett will see N spin-ups is indeed
>>> one. However the probability that you will see  N spin-ups is not.
>>> As I mentioned before, for this sort of discussion the way the English
>>> language handles personal pronouns needs to be modified.
>>>
>>
>> It is not a question of whether you will see the N spin-ups, or
>> whether it is just one copy of Bruce Kellett that will see this. The
>> incompatibility arises from the fact that the series of N spin-ups
>> necessarily exits in MWI, where it only has probability 1/2^N from the 
>> Born
>> rule.
>>
>
> If you lived in any sort of universe where you were duplicated, there
> would be some probability that you would see different outcomes.
>

 So what? The problem you have is that you have changed the rules of the
 theory -- from a theory about what exists, to a theory about what you will
 see. Since you will only ever see one outcome, one world, you have reduced
 it from a theory of many worlds to a theory of a single world -- the world
 you will see!

>>>
>>> Obviously the Born rule under MWI is about the probability of what
>>> outcome you will see.
>>>
>>
>> As I pointed out, if it is a theory about what you will see, then it is a
>> single world theory, since you will only ever see just one world. Hence the
>> incompatibility with Many worlds, which is a theory about what exists.
>>
>
> If I pull a coloured ball out of a basket, there is a probability of what
> ball I will see and a theory about what balls exist.
>


Not really comparable. The probability of what ball you get is distinct
from the fact that the ball exists. MWI is not a theory about what you will
see. Any theory about that is necessarily a single world theory since you
only see one ball. MWI is a theory about what exists, and its claim is that
many worlds all exist with probability one.

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/CAFxXSLTaVGwaN%3D9Yr55UK9DTbo2E0AZDzuHxKLR5ZVnpR3fXPA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??




On 11/28/2023 3:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 5:12 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:



On 11/28/2023 1:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 4:55 PM Brent Meeker
 wrote:



On 11/28/2023 1:33 PM, John Clark wrote:



On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:22 PM Brent Meeker
 wrote:




That is incorrect. Schrodinger'sequation, the thing
that generates the complex wave function, says
nothing, absolutely nothing, about that wave
function collapsing, So if you don't like
philosophical paradoxes but still want to use
Schrodinger's equation because it always gives
correct results, you only have 2 options:
1) You can stick on bells and whistles to
Schrodinger's equation to get rid of those other
worlds that you find so annoying even though there's
no experimental evidence that they are needed.


>///You can do exactly the same thing the MWI fans do and
apply the Born rule to predict the probability of your
world. /


That is absolutely correct.If you're an engineer and are
only interested in finding the correct answer to a given
problem then Shut Up And Calculate works just fine.MWIis
only needed if you're curious and want to look under the
hood to figure out what could possibly make the quantum
realm behave so weirdly.


Except that in spite of many attempts the application of the
Born rule isn't found under the hood.



Is it found in Copenhagen?

Yes, because Copenhagen explicitly included it and didn't pretend
the the Schroedinger equation was everything.



If both Interpretations must assume it, I don't see how that's a 
special weakness of MWI.


But MWI fans assert that it is superior because it doesn't assume the 
Born rule, only the Schroedinger equation.  I wouldn't claim that the 
(modern) version of Copenhagen is superior to MWI, I'm just unconvinced 
of the converse.


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/fb2ac133-436e-43e8-aab6-6fc495930aba%40gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 11:17, Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:13 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 10:53, Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:40 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 09:34, Bruce Kellett 
 wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:29 AM John Clark 
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:14 PM Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>> *> Given a long series of N spin measurements, MWI says that there is
>>> always one person who sees N spin-ups. Since this observation is 
>>> certain,
>>> it has probability one. Whereas the Born probability of seeing N ups is
>>> 1/2^N. A clear contradiction.*
>>
>>
>>
>>  The probability that Bruce Kellett will see N spin-ups is indeed
>> one. However the probability that you will see  N spin-ups is not.
>> As I mentioned before, for this sort of discussion the way the English
>> language handles personal pronouns needs to be modified.
>>
>
> It is not a question of whether you will see the N spin-ups, or
> whether it is just one copy of Bruce Kellett that will see this. The
> incompatibility arises from the fact that the series of N spin-ups
> necessarily exits in MWI, where it only has probability 1/2^N from the 
> Born
> rule.
>

 If you lived in any sort of universe where you were duplicated, there
 would be some probability that you would see different outcomes.

>>>
>>> So what? The problem you have is that you have changed the rules of the
>>> theory -- from a theory about what exists, to a theory about what you will
>>> see. Since you will only ever see one outcome, one world, you have reduced
>>> it from a theory of many worlds to a theory of a single world -- the world
>>> you will see!
>>>
>>
>> Obviously the Born rule under MWI is about the probability of what
>> outcome you will see.
>>
>
> As I pointed out, if it is a theory about what you will see, then it is a
> single world theory, since you will only ever see just one world. Hence the
> incompatibility with Many worlds, which is a theory about what exists.
>

If I pull a coloured ball out of a basket, there is a probability of what
ball I will see and a theory about what balls exist.


-- 
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%3D2ypX5F%3DL3E54v7QGsZ_hhZ3mjY6wv0ChxH%2Bz6trn_FBd9SA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:13 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 10:53, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:40 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 09:34, Bruce Kellett 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:29 AM John Clark 
 wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:14 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> *> Given a long series of N spin measurements, MWI says that there is
>> always one person who sees N spin-ups. Since this observation is certain,
>> it has probability one. Whereas the Born probability of seeing N ups is
>> 1/2^N. A clear contradiction.*
>
>
>
>  The probability that Bruce Kellett will see N spin-ups is indeed
> one. However the probability that you will see  N spin-ups is not. As
> I mentioned before, for this sort of discussion the way the English
> language handles personal pronouns needs to be modified.
>

 It is not a question of whether you will see the N spin-ups, or whether
 it is just one copy of Bruce Kellett that will see this. The
 incompatibility arises from the fact that the series of N spin-ups
 necessarily exits in MWI, where it only has probability 1/2^N from the Born
 rule.

>>>
>>> If you lived in any sort of universe where you were duplicated, there
>>> would be some probability that you would see different outcomes.
>>>
>>
>> So what? The problem you have is that you have changed the rules of the
>> theory -- from a theory about what exists, to a theory about what you will
>> see. Since you will only ever see one outcome, one world, you have reduced
>> it from a theory of many worlds to a theory of a single world -- the world
>> you will see!
>>
>
> Obviously the Born rule under MWI is about the probability of what outcome
> you will see.
>

As I pointed out, if it is a theory about what you will see, then it is a
single world theory, since you will only ever see just one world. Hence the
incompatibility with Many worlds, which is a theory about what exists.

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/CAFxXSLREddMpvzNkK0ofGHqQFBMVzFS7cfLi-yqbzWGftxSYbw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 10:53, Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:40 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 09:34, Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:29 AM John Clark  wrote:
>>>
 On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:14 PM Bruce Kellett 
 wrote:

 *> Given a long series of N spin measurements, MWI says that there is
> always one person who sees N spin-ups. Since this observation is certain,
> it has probability one. Whereas the Born probability of seeing N ups is
> 1/2^N. A clear contradiction.*



  The probability that Bruce Kellett will see N spin-ups is indeed one.
 However the probability that you will see  N spin-ups is not. As I
 mentioned before, for this sort of discussion the way the English language
 handles personal pronouns needs to be modified.

>>>
>>> It is not a question of whether you will see the N spin-ups, or whether
>>> it is just one copy of Bruce Kellett that will see this. The
>>> incompatibility arises from the fact that the series of N spin-ups
>>> necessarily exits in MWI, where it only has probability 1/2^N from the Born
>>> rule.
>>>
>>
>> If you lived in any sort of universe where you were duplicated, there
>> would be some probability that you would see different outcomes.
>>
>
> So what? The problem you have is that you have changed the rules of the
> theory -- from a theory about what exists, to a theory about what you will
> see. Since you will only ever see one outcome, one world, you have reduced
> it from a theory of many worlds to a theory of a single world -- the world
> you will see!
>

Obviously the Born rule under MWI is about the probability of what outcome
you will see.


-- 
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%3D2ypVkqOhrYa6eqMAd%2B3%3D8auR_%2ByT1TPLv--J4jtFexkLXBg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:40 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 09:34, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:29 AM John Clark  wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:14 PM Bruce Kellett 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> *> Given a long series of N spin measurements, MWI says that there is
 always one person who sees N spin-ups. Since this observation is certain,
 it has probability one. Whereas the Born probability of seeing N ups is
 1/2^N. A clear contradiction.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  The probability that Bruce Kellett will see N spin-ups is indeed one.
>>> However the probability that you will see  N spin-ups is not. As I
>>> mentioned before, for this sort of discussion the way the English language
>>> handles personal pronouns needs to be modified.
>>>
>>
>> It is not a question of whether you will see the N spin-ups, or whether
>> it is just one copy of Bruce Kellett that will see this. The
>> incompatibility arises from the fact that the series of N spin-ups
>> necessarily exits in MWI, where it only has probability 1/2^N from the Born
>> rule.
>>
>
> If you lived in any sort of universe where you were duplicated, there
> would be some probability that you would see different outcomes.
>

So what? The problem you have is that you have changed the rules of the
theory -- from a theory about what exists, to a theory about what you will
see. Since you will only ever see one outcome, one world, you have reduced
it from a theory of many worlds to a theory of a single world -- the world
you will see!

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/CAFxXSLRdiRmnyV4ySFmV-iEbKuYeLKRtjZ%2Bh8GuAZCWBAoWC5g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:25 AM Jason Resch  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 5:12 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>> On 11/28/2023 1:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 4:55 PM Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/28/2023 1:33 PM, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:22 PM Brent Meeker 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> That is incorrect.  Schrodinger's equation, the thing that generates
> the complex wave function, says nothing, absolutely nothing, about that
> wave function collapsing, So if you don't like philosophical paradoxes but
> still want to use Schrodinger's equation because it always gives correct
> results, you only have 2 options:
> 1) You can stick on bells and whistles to Schrodinger's equation to
> get rid of those other worlds that you find so annoying even though 
> there's
> no experimental evidence that they are needed.


 > *You can do exactly the same thing the MWI fans do and apply the
 Born rule to predict the probability of your world. *

>>>
>>> That is absolutely correct. If you're an engineer and are only
>>> interested in finding the correct answer to a given problem then Shut Up
>>> And Calculate works just fine.  MWI is only needed if you're curious
>>> and want to look under the hood to figure out what could possibly make the
>>> quantum realm behave so weirdly.
>>>
>>>
>>> Except that in spite of many attempts the application of the Born rule
>>> isn't found under the hood.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Is it found in Copenhagen?
>>
>> Yes, because Copenhagen explicitly included it and didn't pretend the the
>> Schroedinger equation was everything.
>>
>
>
> If both Interpretations must assume it, I don't see how that's a special
> weakness of MWI.
>

It is a particular weakness of MWI because the Born rule is incompatible
with MWI. It is not incompatible with the CI.

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/CAFxXSLTp%2BWrKVubN5RNiVdpy-iis4mBkMY81tdj-XkrSnvmj1A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 09:34, Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:29 AM John Clark  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:14 PM Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>> *> Given a long series of N spin measurements, MWI says that there is
>>> always one person who sees N spin-ups. Since this observation is certain,
>>> it has probability one. Whereas the Born probability of seeing N ups is
>>> 1/2^N. A clear contradiction.*
>>
>>
>>
>>  The probability that Bruce Kellett will see N spin-ups is indeed one.
>> However the probability that you will see  N spin-ups is not. As I
>> mentioned before, for this sort of discussion the way the English language
>> handles personal pronouns needs to be modified.
>>
>
> It is not a question of whether you will see the N spin-ups, or whether it
> is just one copy of Bruce Kellett that will see this. The incompatibility
> arises from the fact that the series of N spin-ups necessarily exits in
> MWI, where it only has probability 1/2^N from the Born rule.
>

If you lived in any sort of universe where you were duplicated, there would
be some probability that you would see different outcomes.


-- 
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%3D2ypX8q2qi-iwdbYDd6szN%3D0x6Zn%3DzbTUKRS9vF9%3D-dY28_g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

2023-11-28 Thread Jason Resch

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 5:12 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 11/28/2023 1:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 4:55 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 11/28/2023 1:33 PM, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:22 PM Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>> That is incorrect.  Schrodinger's equation, the thing that generates the
 complex wave function, says nothing, absolutely nothing, about that wave
 function collapsing, So if you don't like philosophical paradoxes but still
 want to use Schrodinger's equation because it always gives correct results,
 you only have 2 options:
 1) You can stick on bells and whistles to Schrodinger's equation to
 get rid of those other worlds that you find so annoying even though there's
 no experimental evidence that they are needed.
>>>
>>>
>>> > *You can do exactly the same thing the MWI fans do and apply the Born
>>> rule to predict the probability of your world. *
>>>
>>
>> That is absolutely correct. If you're an engineer and are only
>> interested in finding the correct answer to a given problem then Shut Up
>> And Calculate works just fine.  MWI is only needed if you're curious and
>> want to look under the hood to figure out what could possibly make the
>> quantum realm behave so weirdly.
>>
>>
>> Except that in spite of many attempts the application of the Born rule
>> isn't found under the hood.
>>
>
>
> Is it found in Copenhagen?
>
> Yes, because Copenhagen explicitly included it and didn't pretend the the
> Schroedinger equation was everything.
>


If both Interpretations must assume it, I don't see how that's a special
weakness of MWI.

Jason


> 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/79e091f7-152e-48b8-9317-b186d51f9c2e%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/CA%2BBCJUgnNDU0h11BDDEc4YjCJmXdW-pGzFXCx10FfCeGcX%3DsaQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:41 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:34 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
>  >> The probability that Bruce Kellett will see N spin-ups is indeed one.
>>> However the probability that you will see  N spin-ups is not. As I
>>> mentioned before, for this sort of discussion the way the English language
>>> handles personal pronouns needs to be modified.
>>>
>>
>> *> It is not a question of whether you will see the N spin-ups, or
>> whether it is just one copy of Bruce Kellett that will see this.*
>>
>
> If those factors don't enter into your "question" then what you ask is
> not a question at all, it's just gibberish.
>

And that is the way in which you avoid difficult questions.

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/CAFxXSLRW-hZPjZWtx0M-D_RLrhL_tn%3D7NKn2HTcwsZOnfH6aaQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:34 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

 >> The probability that Bruce Kellett will see N spin-ups is indeed one.
>> However the probability that you will see  N spin-ups is not. As I
>> mentioned before, for this sort of discussion the way the English language
>> handles personal pronouns needs to be modified.
>>
>
> *> It is not a question of whether you will see the N spin-ups, or whether
> it is just one copy of Bruce Kellett that will see this.*
>

If those factors don't enter into your "question" then what you ask is not
a question at all, it's just gibberish.

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

qop

-- 
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/CAJPayv1OZauL7hcF07B3c3rsf%2BhQ%3DYxu8p0Qi_WK%2B4fBjOiRVw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:35 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:28 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> *> Everettians have to derive the Born rule *
>
>
> Nobody needs to derive the Born rule because we know from experiment that
> it's true,  a quantum interpretation just needs to be compatible with it,
> and MWI certainly is.
>

Of course you need to derive the Born rule if you think that the SE gives
you everything you need. Besides, the incompatibility is obvious, as I have
pointed out.

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/CAFxXSLSd_%3DNhsYjzpXt-fMeyPx6dXLJGX0jpJvrcANs0Dn9%3DqA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:28 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*> Everettians have to derive the Born rule *


Nobody needs to derive the Born rule because we know from experiment that
it's true,  a quantum interpretation just needs to be compatible with it,
and MWI certainly is.

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

hga
yuq



>

-- 
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/CAJPayv1dAUSGe0U8%3DtvO-d0GkOFP4QfTVZ7mQHTF0_c22pEgUg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:29 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:14 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> *> Given a long series of N spin measurements, MWI says that there is
>> always one person who sees N spin-ups. Since this observation is certain,
>> it has probability one. Whereas the Born probability of seeing N ups is
>> 1/2^N. A clear contradiction.*
>
>
>
>  The probability that Bruce Kellett will see N spin-ups is indeed one.
> However the probability that you will see  N spin-ups is not. As I
> mentioned before, for this sort of discussion the way the English language
> handles personal pronouns needs to be modified.
>

It is not a question of whether you will see the N spin-ups, or whether it
is just one copy of Bruce Kellett that will see this. The incompatibility
arises from the fact that the series of N spin-ups necessarily exits in
MWI, where it only has probability 1/2^N from the Born rule.

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/CAFxXSLTw-NWTYYypecpM5zTcAoLi7HNdx8t_95HTzpGA0hgcHg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:14 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*> Given a long series of N spin measurements, MWI says that there is
> always one person who sees N spin-ups. Since this observation is certain,
> it has probability one. Whereas the Born probability of seeing N ups is
> 1/2^N. A clear contradiction.*

 The probability that Bruce Kellett will see N spin-ups is indeed one.
However the probability that you will see  N spin-ups is not. As I
mentioned before, for this sort of discussion the way the English language
handles personal pronouns needs to be modified.

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

0nt

>
>

-- 
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/CAJPayv2DcTtXjKPrY_yubqneJQs6qPpMDW5AnLVDVS_Jft4uzA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:21 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:08 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> *> the Born Rule is a necessary additional hypothesis in order to connect
>> the theory with experiment.*
>>
>
>  True, and for that reason theory does not have to derive the Born Rule,
> but theory does have to be compatible with it.
>

MWI claims that the SE is everything that is needed for quantum mechanics.
That is obviously false, because the Born rule is also needed to connect
the wave function with experiment. Therefore, Everettians have to derive
the Born rule from the SE, and this has proved to be difficult. Largely
because the Born rule is incompatible with MWI, as I have pointed out.

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/CAFxXSLSpe6c5ig0mNwvwe9b%2B0Au%2B9hEuJWPhUM7c-fk8V8EnPQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:08 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*> the Born Rule is a necessary additional hypothesis in order to connect
> the theory with experiment.*
>

 True, and for that reason theory does not have to derive the Born Rule,
but theory does have to be compatible with it.

> > You have to explain the origin of probabilities
>

The Shut Up And Calculate people would disagree, they would say you don't
need to explain anything as long as you get an answer that agrees with
experiment.  And the Copenhagen people would say that bafflegab is a
sufficient explanation .

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

mev

-- 
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/CAJPayv0S3s5zq4CdQs%3DkW2iP4LU560v6U2vDmu0%2BdUgufbXFfA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:10 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:00 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> *> John is doing a lot of flailing around in an attempt to avoid the
>> question of where the Born Rule comes from, and the fact that it is
>> actually incompatible with the many worlds approach.*
>>
>
> How so?
>

The incompatibility is obvious. Given a long series of N spin measurements,
MWI says that there is always one person who sees N spin-ups. Since this
observation is certain, it has probability one. Whereas the Born
probability of seeing N ups is 1/2^N. A clear contradiction.

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/CAFxXSLSdF5k8pj%3D4tYUKQUueDPVoNHoC774vnbaHZMo3nXW_eA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??




On 11/28/2023 1:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 4:55 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:



On 11/28/2023 1:33 PM, John Clark wrote:



On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:22 PM Brent Meeker
 wrote:




That is incorrect. Schrodinger'sequation, the thing that
generates the complex wave function, says nothing,
absolutely nothing, about that wave function collapsing,
So if you don't like philosophical paradoxes but still
want to use Schrodinger's equation because it always
gives correct results, you only have 2 options:
1) You can stick on bells and whistles to Schrodinger's
equation to get rid of those other worlds that you find
so annoying even though there's no experimental evidence
that they are needed.


>///You can do exactly the same thing the MWI fans do and
apply the Born rule to predict the probability of your world. /


That is absolutely correct.If you're an engineer and are only
interested in finding the correct answer to a given problem then
Shut Up And Calculate works just fine.MWIis only needed if you're
curious and want to look under the hood to figure out what could
possibly make the quantum realm behave so weirdly.


Except that in spite of many attempts the application of the Born
rule isn't found under the hood.



Is it found in Copenhagen?
Yes, because Copenhagen explicitly included it and didn't pretend the 
the Schroedinger equation was everything.


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/79e091f7-152e-48b8-9317-b186d51f9c2e%40gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:07 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:55 PM Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>  >> If you're an engineer and are only interested in finding the correct
>>> answer to a given problem then Shut Up And Calculate works just fine.
>>> MWI is only needed if you're curious and want to look under the hood to
>>> figure out what could possibly make the quantum realm behave so weirdly.
>>
>>
>>
>> *> Except that in spite of many attempts the application of the Born rule
>> isn't found under the hood.*
>>
>
>  Many Worlds, the Born Rule, and Self-Locating Uncertainty
> 
>

I don't think Carroll has solved the problem either. He only gets the
answer he wants by assuming the Born rule probabilities in advance.

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/CAFxXSLSh_tnrOdvkAZSZYiSFn1nPXo8Ux9sRa%3DZ4de%3Dk5edyYg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:00 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*> John is doing a lot of flailing around in an attempt to avoid the
> question of where the Born Rule comes from, and the fact that it is
> actually incompatible with the many worlds approach.*
>

How so?

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

sdf

\

-- 
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/CAJPayv1CNJ%3DQH8wPXXMnPAZ-8G8uzLQTnexKRUdB0yEH8UtWfA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:58 AM Jason Resch  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 4:55 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>> On 11/28/2023 1:33 PM, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:22 PM Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That is incorrect.  Schrodinger's equation, the thing that generates
 the complex wave function, says nothing, absolutely nothing, about that
 wave function collapsing, So if you don't like philosophical paradoxes but
 still want to use Schrodinger's equation because it always gives correct
 results, you only have 2 options:
 1) You can stick on bells and whistles to Schrodinger's equation to
 get rid of those other worlds that you find so annoying even though there's
 no experimental evidence that they are needed.
>>>
>>>
>>> > *You can do exactly the same thing the MWI fans do and apply the Born
>>> rule to predict the probability of your world. *
>>>
>>
>> That is absolutely correct. If you're an engineer and are only
>> interested in finding the correct answer to a given problem then Shut Up
>> And Calculate works just fine.  MWI is only needed if you're curious and
>> want to look under the hood to figure out what could possibly make the
>> quantum realm behave so weirdly.
>>
>>
>> Except that in spite of many attempts the application of the Born rule
>> isn't found under the hood.
>>
>
>
> Is it found in Copenhagen?
>

Born was not based in Copenhagen. But for the so-called "Copenhagen"
interpretation, the Born Rule is a necessary additional hypothesis in order
to connect the theory with experiment. You have to explain the origin of
probabilities somehow, and the Born rule simply associates them with the
square of the amplitudes of the eigenfunctions in the wave function. This
still leaves the basis question unresolved, but decoherence has given some
clues about the answer to that question. MWI has no clue about how to
resolve the basis question.

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/CAFxXSLQHm7dh_ykhXfozp3nFESL-E%3D5paa9ygJENUUEYqRtagA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:55 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

 >> If you're an engineer and are only interested in finding the correct
>> answer to a given problem then Shut Up And Calculate works just fine.
>> MWI is only needed if you're curious and want to look under the hood to
>> figure out what could possibly make the quantum realm behave so weirdly.
>
>
>
> *> Except that in spite of many attempts the application of the Born rule
> isn't found under the hood.*
>

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


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

tbw

-- 
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/CAJPayv3x5aUg9y9oMLZF29h_zWmvmv3sbGcxL1%3Dcb-k6Yjnwcw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:55 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:

> On 11/28/2023 1:33 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:22 PM Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>> That is incorrect.  Schrodinger's equation, the thing that generates the
>>> complex wave function, says nothing, absolutely nothing, about that wave
>>> function collapsing, So if you don't like philosophical paradoxes but still
>>> want to use Schrodinger's equation because it always gives correct results,
>>> you only have 2 options:
>>> 1) You can stick on bells and whistles to Schrodinger's equation to get
>>> rid of those other worlds that you find so annoying even though there's no
>>> experimental evidence that they are needed.
>>
>>
>> > *You can do exactly the same thing the MWI fans do and apply the Born
>> rule to predict the probability of your world. *
>>
>
> That is absolutely correct. If you're an engineer and are only interested
> in finding the correct answer to a given problem then Shut Up And Calculate
> works just fine.  MWI is only needed if you're curious and want to look
> under the hood to figure out what could possibly make the quantum realm
> behave so weirdly.
>
>
> Except that in spite of many attempts the application of the Born rule
> isn't found under the hood.
>

Yes.John is doing a lot of flailing around in an attempt to avoid the
question of where the Born Rule comes from, and the fact that it is
actually incompatible with the many worlds approach.

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/CAFxXSLSUFOzh-QUqb2dgV2sspfdt0HZm2pRWc5VimX00-ajn_A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

2023-11-28 Thread Jason Resch

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 4:55 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 11/28/2023 1:33 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:22 PM Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>
> That is incorrect.  Schrodinger's equation, the thing that generates the
>>> complex wave function, says nothing, absolutely nothing, about that wave
>>> function collapsing, So if you don't like philosophical paradoxes but still
>>> want to use Schrodinger's equation because it always gives correct results,
>>> you only have 2 options:
>>> 1) You can stick on bells and whistles to Schrodinger's equation to get
>>> rid of those other worlds that you find so annoying even though there's no
>>> experimental evidence that they are needed.
>>
>>
>> > *You can do exactly the same thing the MWI fans do and apply the Born
>> rule to predict the probability of your world. *
>>
>
> That is absolutely correct. If you're an engineer and are only interested
> in finding the correct answer to a given problem then Shut Up And Calculate
> works just fine.  MWI is only needed if you're curious and want to look
> under the hood to figure out what could possibly make the quantum realm
> behave so weirdly.
>
>
> Except that in spite of many attempts the application of the Born rule
> isn't found under the hood.
>


Is it found in Copenhagen?

Jason


> 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/d4c5cd49-55a7-425c-a35d-a61c2c1b9665%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/CA%2BBCJUhd0h1yxYiCHgsb0cYJ2Kiwdk%2B1gxN8FtzSh7pfQuD4cQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??




On 11/28/2023 1:33 PM, John Clark wrote:



On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:22 PM Brent Meeker  
wrote:





That is incorrect. Schrodinger'sequation, the thing that
generates the complex wave function, says nothing, absolutely
nothing, about that wave function collapsing, So if you don't
like philosophical paradoxes but still want to use
Schrodinger's equation because it always gives correct
results, you only have 2 options:
1) You can stick on bells and whistles to Schrodinger's
equation to get rid of those other worlds that you find so
annoying even though there's no experimental evidence that
they are needed.


>///You can do exactly the same thing the MWI fans do and apply the
Born rule to predict the probability of your world. /


That is absolutely correct.If you're an engineer and are only 
interested in finding the correct answer to a given problem then Shut 
Up And Calculate works just fine.MWIis only needed if you're curious 
and want to look under the hood to figure out what could possibly make 
the quantum realm behave so weirdly.


Except that in spite of many attempts the application of the Born rule 
isn't found under the hood.


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/d4c5cd49-55a7-425c-a35d-a61c2c1b9665%40gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:22 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:


>

That is incorrect.  Schrodinger's equation, the thing that generates the
>> complex wave function, says nothing, absolutely nothing, about that wave
>> function collapsing, So if you don't like philosophical paradoxes but still
>> want to use Schrodinger's equation because it always gives correct results,
>> you only have 2 options:
>> 1) You can stick on bells and whistles to Schrodinger's equation to get
>> rid of those other worlds that you find so annoying even though there's no
>> experimental evidence that they are needed.
>
>
> > *You can do exactly the same thing the MWI fans do and apply the Born
> rule to predict the probability of your world. *
>

That is absolutely correct. If you're an engineer and are only interested
in finding the correct answer to a given problem then Shut Up And Calculate
works just fine.  MWI is only needed if you're curious and want to look
under the hood to figure out what could possibly make the quantum realm
behave so weirdly.


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

asc


> 2) You can use bafflegab, as Niels Bohr did, to conceal the fact that the
> universe is odd, very very odd.
>
> I don't like the first option because I do like William of Ockham. And I
> don't like the second option because I do like clarity. Maybe tomorrow
> something better will pop up but as of today the only quantum
> interpretation that doesn't use either of the above two options is Many
> Worlds.
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
> 
> qqb
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1oNwtEBomszARqEMYXUdo2-0zLi9cTeeYC%2B8JGJ4SwHw%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4f924191-8ea6-4552-b640-5510eecf0e1e%40gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
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/CAJPayv1KUmgq-SWNokfAAvk0CeFXzM7_P4gSrVV_m7C-TXoX1A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On 11/28/2023 4:28 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 5:00 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:

/>>> I can arrange for any probability between zero and
one of seeing a live cat. Whereas, if there is always a
live cat branch and a dead cat branch, my probability of
seeing a live cat is always 50%, contrary to the laws of
radioactive decay./

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

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

That is incorrect. Schrodinger's equation, the thing that generates
the complex wave function, says nothing, absolutely nothing, about
that wave function collapsing, So if you don't like philosophical
paradoxes but still want to use Schrodinger's equation because it
always gives correct results, you only have 2 options:

1) You can stick on bells and whistles to Schrodinger's equation to
get rid of those other worlds that you find so annoying even though
there's no experimental evidence that they are needed.
You can do exactly the same thing the MWI fans do and apply the Born
rule to predict the probability of your world. That's MWI fan's bells
and whistles which they keep trying to deny.

Brent

2) You can use bafflegab, as Niels Bohr did, to conceal the fact that
the universe is odd, very very odd.

I don't like the first option because I do like William of Ockham. And
I don't like the second option because I do like clarity. Maybe
tomorrow something better will pop up but as of today the only quantum
interpretation that doesn't use either of the above two options
is Many Worlds.

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

qqb

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1oNwtEBomszARqEMYXUdo2-0zLi9cTeeYC%2B8JGJ4SwHw%40mail.gmail.com
.

How to trick GPT

If you just ask GPT how to make napalm it will refuse to tell you because
that would violate its ethical guidelines, but  a very easy trick will fool
it and make it tell you everything you want to know.

The "Grandma" jailbreak is absolutely hilarious


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

gjj

-- 
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/CAJPayv12G2WoXoym4g1%3D6OFE8YB0KKMGEqJ%2B8b3Fe_gxG4obXA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??