date:20231129

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 12:19 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 11/29/2023 8:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 9:57 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 11/29/2023 4:58 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 7:17 PM Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett 
 wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou <
> stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
 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.
>

 “The Born rule is a rule for calculating probabilities from the wave
 function -- it says nothing about worlds or existence”  -and- “MWI is a
 theory about the existence of many worlds” are not incompatible statements.

>>>
>>> Perhaps that is the wrong way to look at it. The linearity of the
>>> Schrodinger equation implies that the individuals on all branches are the
>>> same: there is nothing to distinguish one of them as "you" and the others
>>> as mere shadows or zombies. In other words, they are all "you". So you are
>>> the person on the branch with all spins up and your probability of seeing
>>> this result is one, since this branch certainly exists, and, by linearity,
>>> "you" are the individual on that branch. This is inconsistent with the
>>> claim that the Born rule gives the probability that "you" will see some
>>> particular result. As we have seen, the probability that "you" will see all
>>> ups in one, whereas the Born probability for this result is 1/2^N. These
>>> probability estimates are incompatible.
>>>
>>
>>
>> According to relativity you exist in all times across your lifespan (and
>> all times are equally really).
>>
>> Sez who?
>>
>
> Sez Einstein, Minkowski, C.W. Rietdijk, Kip Thorne, Briane Greene, and
> Roger Penrose, to name a few.
>
>
> Yes I'm sure you can find some Platonist to cite.
>

Are all of those physicists platonists?

Do you think that your future world-line exists?
>

Yes, but I further believe there's not just one unique future (but many of
them in the multiverse).



>
>
> You take these images intended to help your mathematical intution far too
>> seriously.
>>
>
> You agreed with this at one point in time.
>
>
> Can you quote me?
>



>From this email and the one that follows:

https://groups.google.com/g/everything-list/c/jyB504QkIAs/m/0V0qGJO7Vj0J

"Yes.  So why don't you recognize that "present place" is just a label,
exactly like a latitude and longitude - and then that "present time" is a
label, a coordinate time - which the diagrams I posted made perfectly
clear.  The problem is that you seem to think "here and now" implies a
"there and now"; but "there and now" is ambiguous and is RELATIVE to the
state of motion."

"And just like "here" is relative to state of motion, so is "now". SR isn't
complicated, it
just takes a little adjustment before it's intuitive."



Perhaps I misinterpreted, but I took these quotes to mean you believed the
present was an indexical like "here" and is in no way privileged.



>
> In any case, it's not a mere image, but a well accepted implication of
> relativity.
>
> Then you must believe that your future is as fixed as your past.
>

I have many futures and many pasts (compatible with my present state of
awareness).

Jason


> Brent
>
> See:
>
> https://alwaysasking.com/what-is-time/
>
> For references.
>
>
> --
> 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/4c522bce-974c-43e9-bcfb-7eac3d805d98%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%2BBCJUhMDvW6S8oNRXEitBCkXbW5Rh9P%3DYX6JmiA27VoDVmaFQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On 11/29/2023 8:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 9:57 PM Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/29/2023 4:58 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 7:17 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett
wrote:

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

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.

“The Born rule is a rule for calculating probabilities
from the wave function -- it says nothing about worlds or
existence” -and- “MWI is a theory about the existence of
many worlds” are not incompatible statements.

Perhaps that is the wrong way to look at it. The linearity of
the Schrodinger equation implies that the individuals on all
branches are the same: there is nothing to distinguish one of
them as "you" and the others as mere shadows or zombies. In
other words, they are all "you". So you are the person on the
branch with all spins up and your probability of seeing this
result is one, since this branch certainly exists, and, by
linearity, "you" are the individual on that branch. This is
inconsistent with the claim that the Born rule gives the
probability that "you" will see some particular result. As we
have seen, the probability that "you" will see all ups in
one, whereas the Born probability for this result is 1/2^N.
These probability estimates are incompatible.

According to relativity you exist in all times across your
lifespan (and all times are equally really).

Sez who?

Sez Einstein, Minkowski, C.W. Rietdijk, Kip Thorne, Briane Greene, and
Roger Penrose, to name a few.

Yes I'm sure you can find some Platonist to cite. Do you think that
your future world-line exists?

You take these images intended to help your mathematical intution
far too seriously.

You agreed with this at one point in time.

Can you quote me?

In any case, it's not a mere image, but a well accepted implication of
relativity.

Then you must believe that your future is as fixed as your past.

Brent

See:

https://alwaysasking.com/what-is-time/

For references.

--
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/4c522bce-974c-43e9-bcfb-7eac3d805d98%40gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 10:45 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 12:46 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 8:39 PM Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 11:59 AM Jason Resch 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 7:17 PM Bruce Kellett 
 wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou <
> stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou <
>>> stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>

>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> “The Born rule is a rule for calculating probabilities from the wave
>> function -- it says nothing about worlds or existence”  -and- “MWI is a
>> theory about the existence of many worlds” are not incompatible 
>> statements.
>>
>
> Perhaps that is the wrong way to look at it. The linearity of the
> Schrodinger equation implies that the individuals on all branches are the
> same: there is nothing to distinguish one of them as "you" and the others
> as mere shadows or zombies. In other words, they are all "you". So you are
> the person on the branch with all spins up and your probability of seeing
> this result is one, since this branch certainly exists, and, by linearity,
> "you" are the individual on that branch. This is inconsistent with the
> claim that the Born rule gives the probability that "you" will see some
> particular result. As we have seen, the probability that "you" will see 
> all
> ups in one, whereas the Born probability for this result is 1/2^N. These
> probability estimates are incompatible.
>


 According to relativity you exist in all times across your lifespan
 (and all times are equally really). Yet you are only ever aware of being in
 one time and in one place. I think this tells us more about the limitations
 of our neurology than it reveals about the extent or nature of reality. If
 a copy of me is created on Mars, the me know Earth doesn't magically become
 aware of it.

>>>
>>> And how do we select out the present moment from the block universe?
>>>
>>
>> I believe all apparent selections are merely indexical illusions. 'Here'
>> is no more real than 'There', 'Now' is no more real than 'Then', 'I' is no
>> more real than 'Him'. We only consider these things special due to the
>> position we happen to be in at the time a consideration is made, but all
>> such considerations exist and are equally valid. All 'Heres' are real, all
>> 'Nows' are real, all points of view are 'Is'. Only, as Shrodigner says, we
>> aren't in a position to survey them all at once.
>>
>
> What a load of fanciful nonsense! This goes no way towards explaining our
> experience.
>

Think about it some more.

Jason



> 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/CAFxXSLRrWGtxdn4S1fs8QvJhKd5fdRg0g_ioN5Yga6JK%3D4uLWQ%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/CA%2BBCJUhWtiY_DpgNEcX6nbTSw%2BajB0h27xch-EviY4N0RsQiCA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 9:57 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 11/29/2023 4:58 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 7:17 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou <
 stath...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>>> 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.

>>>
>>> “The Born rule is a rule for calculating probabilities from the wave
>>> function -- it says nothing about worlds or existence”  -and- “MWI is a
>>> theory about the existence of many worlds” are not incompatible statements.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps that is the wrong way to look at it. The linearity of the
>> Schrodinger equation implies that the individuals on all branches are the
>> same: there is nothing to distinguish one of them as "you" and the others
>> as mere shadows or zombies. In other words, they are all "you". So you are
>> the person on the branch with all spins up and your probability of seeing
>> this result is one, since this branch certainly exists, and, by linearity,
>> "you" are the individual on that branch. This is inconsistent with the
>> claim that the Born rule gives the probability that "you" will see some
>> particular result. As we have seen, the probability that "you" will see all
>> ups in one, whereas the Born probability for this result is 1/2^N. These
>> probability estimates are incompatible.
>>
>
>
> According to relativity you exist in all times across your lifespan (and
> all times are equally really).
>
> Sez who?
>

Sez Einstein, Minkowski, C.W. Rietdijk, Kip Thorne, Briane Greene, and
Roger Penrose, to name a few.


You take these images intended to help your mathematical intution far too
> seriously.
>

You agreed with this at one point in time.

In any case, it's not a mere image, but a well accepted implication of
relativity. See:

https://alwaysasking.com/what-is-time/

For references.

Jason


>
> Yet you are only ever aware of being in one time and in one place. I think
> this tells us more about the limitations of our neurology than it reveals
> about the extent or nature of reality. If a copy of me is created on Mars,
> the me know Earth doesn't magically become aware of it.
>
> Jason
>
>
>> 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/CAFxXSLQL8jz5p5AvoaZAr4%2B06KfsAC8KwA2ZaJpWhDDoYAifpA%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/CA%2BBCJUi697%3DmSFSQuvh%3D6BRiKN5kCCkMKQLE3U9YXx%3DaPJ1yPw%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/4a29fac3-16c4-4909-b01b-d39820a9a6e7%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%2BBCJUi4OvZa0Lh9_cHHP6wFgp8yzrsGOAjACavkpbbtJGRVdA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 12:46 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 8:39 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 11:59 AM Jason Resch 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 7:17 PM Bruce Kellett 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou <
 stath...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou <
>> stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
> 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.
>>
>
> “The Born rule is a rule for calculating probabilities from the wave
> function -- it says nothing about worlds or existence”  -and- “MWI is a
> theory about the existence of many worlds” are not incompatible 
> statements.
>

 Perhaps that is the wrong way to look at it. The linearity of the
 Schrodinger equation implies that the individuals on all branches are the
 same: there is nothing to distinguish one of them as "you" and the others
 as mere shadows or zombies. In other words, they are all "you". So you are
 the person on the branch with all spins up and your probability of seeing
 this result is one, since this branch certainly exists, and, by linearity,
 "you" are the individual on that branch. This is inconsistent with the
 claim that the Born rule gives the probability that "you" will see some
 particular result. As we have seen, the probability that "you" will see all
 ups in one, whereas the Born probability for this result is 1/2^N. These
 probability estimates are incompatible.

>>>
>>>
>>> According to relativity you exist in all times across your lifespan (and
>>> all times are equally really). Yet you are only ever aware of being in one
>>> time and in one place. I think this tells us more about the limitations of
>>> our neurology than it reveals about the extent or nature of reality. If a
>>> copy of me is created on Mars, the me know Earth doesn't magically become
>>> aware of it.
>>>
>>
>> And how do we select out the present moment from the block universe?
>>
>
> I believe all apparent selections are merely indexical illusions. 'Here'
> is no more real than 'There', 'Now' is no more real than 'Then', 'I' is no
> more real than 'Him'. We only consider these things special due to the
> position we happen to be in at the time a consideration is made, but all
> such considerations exist and are equally valid. All 'Heres' are real, all
> 'Nows' are real, all points of view are 'Is'. Only, as Shrodigner says, we
> aren't in a position to survey them all at once.
>

What a load of fanciful nonsense! This goes no way towards explaining our
experience.

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/CAFxXSLRrWGtxdn4S1fs8QvJhKd5fdRg0g_ioN5Yga6JK%3D4uLWQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On 11/29/2023 5:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 8:39 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 11:59 AM Jason Resch
wrote:

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 7:17 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett
wrote:

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

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.

“The Born rule is a rule for calculating probabilities
from the wave function -- it says nothing about worlds
or existence” -and- “MWI is a theory about the
existence of many worlds” are not incompatible statements.

Perhaps that is the wrong way to look at it. The linearity
of the Schrodinger equation implies that the individuals
on all branches are the same: there is nothing to
distinguish one of them as "you" and the others as mere
shadows or zombies. In other words, they are all "you". So
you are the person on the branch with all spins up and
your probability of seeing this result is one, since this
branch certainly exists, and, by linearity, "you" are the
individual on that branch. This is inconsistent with the
claim that the Born rule gives the probability that "you"
will see some particular result. As we have seen, the
probability that "you" will see all ups in one, whereas
the Born probability for this result is 1/2^N. These
probability estimates are incompatible.

According to relativity you exist in all times across your
lifespan (and all times are equally really). Yet you are only
ever aware of being in one time and in one place. I think this
tells us more about the limitations of our neurology than it
reveals about the extent or nature of reality. If a copy of me
is created on Mars, the me know Earth doesn't magically become
aware of it.

And how do we select out the present moment from the block universe?

I believe all apparent selections are merely indexical illusions.
'Here' is no more real than 'There', 'Now' is no more real than
'Then', 'I' is no more real than 'Him'. We only consider these things
special due to the position we happen to be in at the time a
consideration is made, but all such considerations exist and are
equally valid. All 'Heres' are real, all 'Nows' are real, all points
of view are 'Is'. Only, as Shrodigner says, we aren't in a position to
survey them all at once.

But if somebody drops a bomb on there and you're here and not there you
may find it makes a difference.

Brent

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On 11/29/2023 4:58 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 7:17 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett
wrote:

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

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.

“The Born rule is a rule for calculating probabilities from
the wave function -- it says nothing about worlds or
existence” -and- “MWI is a theory about the existence of many
worlds” are not incompatible statements.

Perhaps that is the wrong way to look at it. The linearity of the
Schrodinger equation implies that the individuals on all branches
are the same: there is nothing to distinguish one of them as "you"
and the others as mere shadows or zombies. In other words, they
are all "you". So you are the person on the branch with all spins
up and your probability of seeing this result is one, since this
branch certainly exists, and, by linearity, "you" are the
individual on that branch. This is inconsistent with the claim
that the Born rule gives the probability that "you" will see some
particular result. As we have seen, the probability that "you"
will see all ups in one, whereas the Born probability for this
result is 1/2^N. These probability estimates are incompatible.

According to relativity you exist in all times across your lifespan
(and all times are equally really).
Sez who? You take these images intended to help your mathematical
intution far too seriously.

Brent

Yet you are only ever aware of being in one time and in one place. I
think this tells us more about the limitations of our neurology than
it reveals about the extent or nature of reality. If a copy of me is
created on Mars, the me know Earth doesn't magically become aware of it.

Jason

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/CAFxXSLQL8jz5p5AvoaZAr4%2B06KfsAC8KwA2ZaJpWhDDoYAifpA%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/CA%2BBCJUi697%3DmSFSQuvh%3D6BRiKN5kCCkMKQLE3U9YXx%3DaPJ1yPw%40mail.gmail.com
.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 8:39 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 11:59 AM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 7:17 PM Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett 
 wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou <
> stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
 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.
>

 “The Born rule is a rule for calculating probabilities from the wave
 function -- it says nothing about worlds or existence”  -and- “MWI is a
 theory about the existence of many worlds” are not incompatible statements.

>>>
>>> Perhaps that is the wrong way to look at it. The linearity of the
>>> Schrodinger equation implies that the individuals on all branches are the
>>> same: there is nothing to distinguish one of them as "you" and the others
>>> as mere shadows or zombies. In other words, they are all "you". So you are
>>> the person on the branch with all spins up and your probability of seeing
>>> this result is one, since this branch certainly exists, and, by linearity,
>>> "you" are the individual on that branch. This is inconsistent with the
>>> claim that the Born rule gives the probability that "you" will see some
>>> particular result. As we have seen, the probability that "you" will see all
>>> ups in one, whereas the Born probability for this result is 1/2^N. These
>>> probability estimates are incompatible.
>>>
>>
>>
>> According to relativity you exist in all times across your lifespan (and
>> all times are equally really). Yet you are only ever aware of being in one
>> time and in one place. I think this tells us more about the limitations of
>> our neurology than it reveals about the extent or nature of reality. If a
>> copy of me is created on Mars, the me know Earth doesn't magically become
>> aware of it.
>>
>
> And how do we select out the present moment from the block universe?
>

I believe all apparent selections are merely indexical illusions. 'Here' is
no more real than 'There', 'Now' is no more real than 'Then', 'I' is no
more real than 'Him'. We only consider these things special due to the
position we happen to be in at the time a consideration is made, but all
such considerations exist and are equally valid. All 'Heres' are real, all
'Nows' are real, all points of view are 'Is'. Only, as Shrodigner says, we
aren't in a position to survey them all at once.

Jason


It seems that whatever line you take, there are an awful lot of
> supplementary assumptions needed before MWI gets off the ground.
>
> 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/CAFxXSLRKTT8h7JAHFvuwR%2B%2B3Fmg1ofX7hST1Hu6Yk9Vu8rMLmg%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/CA%2BBCJUgbp3rvj_CWFpyE54oUXnmRhGUBKf6iUdzN-RUgfzkL_g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 12:34 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

> On 11/29/2023 4:17 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
>>> wrote:
>>>

>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> “The Born rule is a rule for calculating probabilities from the wave
>> function -- it says nothing about worlds or existence”  -and- “MWI is a
>> theory about the existence of many worlds” are not incompatible statements.
>>
>
> Perhaps that is the wrong way to look at it. The linearity of the
> Schrodinger equation implies that the individuals on all branches are the
> same: there is nothing to distinguish one of them as "you" and the others
> as mere shadows or zombies. In other words, they are all "you". So you are
> the person on the branch with all spins up and your probability of seeing
> this result is one, since this branch certainly exists, and, by linearity,
> "you" are the individual on that branch. This is inconsistent with the
> claim that the Born rule gives the probability that "you" will see some
> particular result. As we have seen, the probability that "you" will see all
> ups in one, whereas the Born probability for this result is 1/2^N. These
> probability estimates are incompatible.
>
>
> How is this different than throwing a die and seeing it came up 6.  Is
> that incompatible with that result having probability 1/6?  Why don't we
> have a multiple-worlds theory of classical probabilities?
>

Maybe because the single world explanation is simpler. We do not have a
theory that says that all possibilities actually occur on each throw of the
die.

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/CAFxXSLQpUuOkmDXE%3DQK6_NgApgsV15PfyukeVU829rb6xR8s6g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 8:34 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 11/29/2023 4:17 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
>>> wrote:
>>>

>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> “The Born rule is a rule for calculating probabilities from the wave
>> function -- it says nothing about worlds or existence”  -and- “MWI is a
>> theory about the existence of many worlds” are not incompatible statements.
>>
>
> Perhaps that is the wrong way to look at it. The linearity of the
> Schrodinger equation implies that the individuals on all branches are the
> same: there is nothing to distinguish one of them as "you" and the others
> as mere shadows or zombies. In other words, they are all "you". So you are
> the person on the branch with all spins up and your probability of seeing
> this result is one, since this branch certainly exists, and, by linearity,
> "you" are the individual on that branch. This is inconsistent with the
> claim that the Born rule gives the probability that "you" will see some
> particular result. As we have seen, the probability that "you" will see all
> ups in one, whereas the Born probability for this result is 1/2^N. These
> probability estimates are incompatible.
>
>
> How is this different than throwing a die and seeing it came up 6.  Is
> that incompatible with that result having probability 1/6?  Why don't we
> have a multiple-worlds theory of classical probabilities?
>

It's interesting, Feynman and others had this exact debate in that
reference scerir provided (asking how quantum probabilities are different
from dice rolls, Feynman thought there was an important difference).

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/e08cb2fe-f896-4300-8214-3318ca5c1069%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%2BBCJUi2m%3DTHkW8wKQZFsxHuUFtRwh6ZR8h7YPe119zZiARnPA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 11:59 AM Jason Resch  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 7:17 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou <
 stath...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>>> 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.

>>>
>>> “The Born rule is a rule for calculating probabilities from the wave
>>> function -- it says nothing about worlds or existence”  -and- “MWI is a
>>> theory about the existence of many worlds” are not incompatible statements.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps that is the wrong way to look at it. The linearity of the
>> Schrodinger equation implies that the individuals on all branches are the
>> same: there is nothing to distinguish one of them as "you" and the others
>> as mere shadows or zombies. In other words, they are all "you". So you are
>> the person on the branch with all spins up and your probability of seeing
>> this result is one, since this branch certainly exists, and, by linearity,
>> "you" are the individual on that branch. This is inconsistent with the
>> claim that the Born rule gives the probability that "you" will see some
>> particular result. As we have seen, the probability that "you" will see all
>> ups in one, whereas the Born probability for this result is 1/2^N. These
>> probability estimates are incompatible.
>>
>
>
> According to relativity you exist in all times across your lifespan (and
> all times are equally really). Yet you are only ever aware of being in one
> time and in one place. I think this tells us more about the limitations of
> our neurology than it reveals about the extent or nature of reality. If a
> copy of me is created on Mars, the me know Earth doesn't magically become
> aware of it.
>

And how do we select out the present moment from the block universe? It
seems that whatever line you take, there are an awful lot of supplementary
assumptions needed before MWI gets off the ground.

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/CAFxXSLRKTT8h7JAHFvuwR%2B%2B3Fmg1ofX7hST1Hu6Yk9Vu8rMLmg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On 11/29/2023 4:17 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett
wrote:

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

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.

“The Born rule is a rule for calculating probabilities from the
wave function -- it says nothing about worlds or existence” -and-
“MWI is a theory about the existence of many worlds” are not
incompatible statements.

Perhaps that is the wrong way to look at it. The linearity of the
Schrodinger equation implies that the individuals on all branches are
the same: there is nothing to distinguish one of them as "you" and the
others as mere shadows or zombies. In other words, they are all "you".
So you are the person on the branch with all spins up and your
probability of seeing this result is one, since this branch certainly
exists, and, by linearity, "you" are the individual on that branch.
This is inconsistent with the claim that the Born rule gives the
probability that "you" will see some particular result. As we have
seen, the probability that "you" will see all ups in one, whereas the
Born probability for this result is 1/2^N. These probability estimates
are incompatible.

How is this different than throwing a die and seeing it came up 6. Is
that incompatible with that result having probability 1/6? Why don't we
have a multiple-worlds theory of classical probabilities?

Brent

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 7:17 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
>>> wrote:
>>>

>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> “The Born rule is a rule for calculating probabilities from the wave
>> function -- it says nothing about worlds or existence”  -and- “MWI is a
>> theory about the existence of many worlds” are not incompatible statements.
>>
>
> Perhaps that is the wrong way to look at it. The linearity of the
> Schrodinger equation implies that the individuals on all branches are the
> same: there is nothing to distinguish one of them as "you" and the others
> as mere shadows or zombies. In other words, they are all "you". So you are
> the person on the branch with all spins up and your probability of seeing
> this result is one, since this branch certainly exists, and, by linearity,
> "you" are the individual on that branch. This is inconsistent with the
> claim that the Born rule gives the probability that "you" will see some
> particular result. As we have seen, the probability that "you" will see all
> ups in one, whereas the Born probability for this result is 1/2^N. These
> probability estimates are incompatible.
>


According to relativity you exist in all times across your lifespan (and
all times are equally really). Yet you are only ever aware of being in one
time and in one place. I think this tells us more about the limitations of
our neurology than it reveals about the extent or nature of reality. If a
copy of me is created on Mars, the me know Earth doesn't magically become
aware of it.

Jason


> 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/CAFxXSLQL8jz5p5AvoaZAr4%2B06KfsAC8KwA2ZaJpWhDDoYAifpA%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/CA%2BBCJUi697%3DmSFSQuvh%3D6BRiKN5kCCkMKQLE3U9YXx%3DaPJ1yPw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
> 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.
>>
>
> “The Born rule is a rule for calculating probabilities from the wave
> function -- it says nothing about worlds or existence”  -and- “MWI is a
> theory about the existence of many worlds” are not incompatible statements.
>

Perhaps that is the wrong way to look at it. The linearity of the
Schrodinger equation implies that the individuals on all branches are the
same: there is nothing to distinguish one of them as "you" and the others
as mere shadows or zombies. In other words, they are all "you". So you are
the person on the branch with all spins up and your probability of seeing
this result is one, since this branch certainly exists, and, by linearity,
"you" are the individual on that branch. This is inconsistent with the
claim that the Born rule gives the probability that "you" will see some
particular result. As we have seen, the probability that "you" will see all
ups in one, whereas the Born probability for this result is 1/2^N. These
probability estimates are incompatible.

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/CAFxXSLQL8jz5p5AvoaZAr4%2B06KfsAC8KwA2ZaJpWhDDoYAifpA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??




On 11/29/2023 10:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 7:43 PM Brent Meeker  
wrote:


/> 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 that case  MWI* would be the same as CI un that neithercould 
explain why Schrodinger's equation and the Born ruletreat one world 
very differently from all the others that makes it more real. MWI*we 
have to start talking about measurement and observers and all that crap.


All that crap that makes up everything we observe, write down, report 
and cite in papers?  That crap?


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/a170e21d-71bd-486d-a049-f378290d5c08%40gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On 11/29/2023 6:27 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:

[Bruce] 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.

Principle of least information? Omniverse -> Multiverse -> Universe?

"/Jaynes' followers propose a profound connection between action and
information, such that the principle of least action and the laws of
thermodynamics both derive from basic symmetries of logic itself. /

I'd like to see that derivation.

/We need only accept that all conceivable universes are equally likely, /

That figures; they are zero likely.

/a principle of least information. Under this assumption, we can
imagine a smooth spectrum from metaphysics to physics, from the
omniverse to the multiverse to the universe, where the fundamental
axis is information, and the only fundamental law is that you can
never assume more than you know./" -- David Dalrymple

Just scienecy speak.

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/1771043491.3511581.1701268032292%40mail1.libero.it
.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 2:59 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 11/29/2023 4:00 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 7:30 PM Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
> *> 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.*
>
>
> A pretty convincing argument can be made that if the Many Worlds idea is
> true then the Born Rule must have the ability to predict the most probable
> outcome of any quantum experiment and as an added bonus, unlike its
> competitors, it can do so without adding any random elements. However I
> admit nobody has ever been able to prove that Many Worlds is the only
> possible explanation of why the Born Rule works, and we already know from
> experiments that it does. Put it this way, if Many Worlds is true then the
> Born Rule works, and if the Born Rule works (and we know that it does) then
> Many Worlds MIGHT be true. But that's still a hell of a lot better than any
> other quantum interpretation anybody has managed to come up with, at least
> so far. I'm not certain Many Worlds is correct, but I am certain its
> competitors are wrong, or so bad they're not even wrong.
>
> And as far as assumptions are concerned, every scientist, not just
> physicists, has no choice but to assume that probability must be a real
> number between zero and one, and all the probabilities must add up to
> exactly one for any given situation, because otherwise the very concept
> of probability would make no sense. And we know that taking the square root
> of the absolute value is the only way to get a number like that out of a
> complex function like Schrodinger's wave equation.  If Many Worlds is
> true, and If each version of Brent Meeker makes bets In accordance with the
> laws of probability so derived, then more Brent Meekers will make money
> by following the advice given by the Born Rule than if they followed any
> other betting strategy. Yes some Brent Meekers will still go broke even
> if they follow the Born Rule, but most will not.
>
>
> Yes, I knew all that.  But does it follow from the Schroedinger equation
> alone.  Reading the Carroll/Sebens paper is suggestive, but it depends on
> transforming to a basis that makes the number of components match the Born
> rule.  But it seems to me that one could transform to basis where the
> number of components did not match the Born rule.  Their example is chosen
> so that in the transformed basis each component has amplitude 1 ,  but
> that's just scaling.  They even start with eqn (33) which is not
> normalized.  So it shows how to convert a weighted superposition into a
> branch count.  But it appears to me that it could produce any number of
> branches.  The example is chosen to neatly produce all branches of
> amplitude 1, but that cannot be significant since eqn(35) is not
> normalized.  So the number of branches is not actually determined and could
> be anything.
>

I found this interesting, on comparing whether all bases are really on
equal footing or not:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XDkeuJTFjM9Y2x6v6/which-basis-is-more-fundamental

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%2BBCJUgA%2BXi3PCs6JyuWhquA2qp4erqY-wW50pa2KubHAK1Ywg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??