Re: The problem with physics

> On 12 Dec 2019, at 23:23, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 7:05 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > Mechanism implies that the soul is immaterial, > > Mechanism implies that information is as close to the traditional concept of > the soul and still

Re: The problem with physics

On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 7:05 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > Mechanism implies that the soul is immaterial, > Mechanism implies that information is as close to the traditional concept of the soul and still remain within the Scientific Method. *> before materialism became a (christian) dogma* [...] >

Re: The problem with physics

> On 11 Dec 2019, at 11:08, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 8:00 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > >>Yesterday before the duplication when there was only ONE, which ONE of the > >>ONE ended up seeing what ONE of them is seeing NOW? > > > We are in

Re: The problem with physics

On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 8:00 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: *>>Yesterday before the duplication when there was only ONE, which ONE of >> the ONE ended up seeing what ONE of them is seeing NOW?* > > > *> We are in the semi-duplication context, * > Semi-duplication? You are assuming there is something

Re: The problem with physics

> On 8 Dec 2019, at 22:55, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 6:30 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > >>> when you listen to each of them, you realise that they know perfectly > who they are. > > >> Yes, one knows he is the Washington Man and one knows he is

Re: The problem with physics

On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 6:30 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >>> when you listen to each of them, you realise that they know > perfectly who they are. > > >> Yes, one knows he is the Washington Man and one knows he is the Moscow > Man. > > *> Sure, but the key point here is that both known that could

Re: The problem with physics

> On 7 Dec 2019, at 01:12, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 7:05 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > In the duplicating machine case even after it's all over it's not at all > > clear who has won because I hear 2 equally loud and equally valid voices > >

Re: The problem with physics

On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 5:04:39 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 9:50 PM Philip Thrift > wrote: > >> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 4:27:30 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> >>> You are coming close to trolling behaviour, Phil. >>> >>> Bruce >>> >> >> >> But isn't

Re: The problem with physics

On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 5:09:42 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 4:50:55 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 4:27:30 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> >>> People can hold several different theories about

Re: The problem with physics

On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 4:50:55 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 4:27:30 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >> >> >> People can hold several different theories about different areas of >> science at the same time. Bringing up some bad review of a book by

Re: The problem with physics

On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 9:50 PM Philip Thrift wrote: > On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 4:27:30 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >> >> >> You are coming close to trolling behaviour, Phil. >> >> Bruce >> > > > But isn't someone who posts and doesn't say who they are a troll? > I think my correct name,

Re: The problem with physics

On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 4:27:30 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 8:21 PM Philip Thrift > wrote: > >> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 3:09:08 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 7:50 PM Philip Thrift wrote: >>> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at

Re: The problem with physics

On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 8:21 PM Philip Thrift wrote: > On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 3:09:08 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 7:50 PM Philip Thrift wrote: >> >>> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 12:22:01 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 8:55 AM Bruce

Re: The problem with physics

On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 3:09:08 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 7:50 PM Philip Thrift > wrote: > >> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 12:22:01 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 8:55 AM Bruce Kellett >>> wrote: >>> Quantum mechanics

Re: The problem with physics

On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 7:50 PM Philip Thrift wrote: > On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 12:22:01 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 8:55 AM Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> >>> Quantum mechanics itself is not counterfactually definite. Einstein was >>> wrong about this. A free

Re: The problem with physics

On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 12:22:01 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 8:55 AM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> >> Quantum mechanics itself is not counterfactually definite. Einstein was >> wrong about this. A free electron is described by a wave packet which is a >>

Re: The problem with physics

On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 8:55 AM Bruce Kellett wrote: > > Quantum mechanics itself is not counterfactually definite. Einstein was > wrong about this. A free electron is described by a wave packet which is a > superposition of states of definite momentum and position. There is no > actual

Re: The problem with physics

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 7:05 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > In the duplicating machine case even after it's all over it's not at all >> clear who has won because I hear 2 equally loud and equally valid voices >> demanding that they deserve to receive the title "you”. > > > *> That is right, and it is

Re: The problem with physics

> On 28 Nov 2019, at 16:51, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 9:43 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > >> In Everett's theory it's easy to specify exactly what the bet is about > >> because after its all over it's clear who has won, > > > In each branch. But

Re: The problem with physics

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 9:43 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> In Everett's theory it's easy to specify exactly what the bet is about >> because after its all over it's clear who has won, > > > *> In each branch. But that is the case in the WM classical duplication > too.* > No it is not. In the

Re: The problem with physics

> On 26 Nov 2019, at 21:11, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 11/26/2019 4:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 21 Nov 2019, at 18:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> The sciences do not try to

Re: The problem with physics

> On 26 Nov 2019, at 14:49, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 7:11 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > > >> thought exparament because there is no way to determine who won and who > >> lost or even nail down exactly what the bet was about, > > > No less

Re: The problem with physics

On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 11:04 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 20 Nov 2019, at 14:51, John Clark wrote: > > > "*R**ealism is "counterfactual definiteness", the idea that it is > possible to meaningfully describe as definite the result of a measurement > which, in fact, has not been performed (i.e.

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/26/2019 4:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Nov 2019, at 18:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to  interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical

Re: The problem with physics

On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 7:11 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> in Bruno's idiotic > > > *> The insult again. * > The observation again. >> thought exparament because there is no way to determine who won and who >> lost or even nail down exactly what the bet was about, > > > *> No less than in the

Re: The problem with physics

> On 25 Nov 2019, at 20:41, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 9:08:49 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 19 Nov 2019, at 16:48, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> In my own formulation >> >>Program >>Language >>Translation >>Object >>

Re: The problem with physics

> On 22 Nov 2019, at 09:09, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > Well... maybe when you are a 50 years old scientist, you can say that, but > this is not the spirit in which science is teached to children or popularized > to laymen. The spirit of science popularization is that it

Re: The problem with physics

> On 21 Nov 2019, at 18:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they > mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with > the addition of certain verbal interpretations,

Re: The problem with physics

> On 21 Nov 2019, at 09:54, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > Models are the myths we invent to navigate nature (reality). Theories are such “myth” (using the logician’s terminology). We need them to do anything. The intended model of those theories is the reality, that we search. We don’t

Re: The problem with physics

> On 21 Nov 2019, at 00:28, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 3:00:35 PM UTC-7, scerir wrote: >> Nevertheless, the SWE does not give a probability without some further >> assumptions. Why do you think that MWI advocates spend so much time an >> effort trying to

Re: The problem with physics

> On 20 Nov 2019, at 23:52, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 2:42 PM 'Brent Meeker' > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: > > >>> The problem is not how to calculate probabilities, it's what do the > >>> probabilities refer to. > > >> The best betting

Re: The problem with physics

> On 20 Nov 2019, at 14:51, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 12:50 AM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > >>> I thought one of the attractions of the many worlds theory was that it > >>> was realistic -- in the sense that the wave function really exists a a

Re: The problem with physics

> On 19 Nov 2019, at 20:18, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 11/19/2019 6:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 18 Nov 2019, at 22:14, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/18/2019 12:20

Re: The problem with physics

On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 9:08:49 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 19 Nov 2019, at 16:48, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > In my own formulation > >Program >Language >Translation >Object >Substrate > > I could identify Substrate with Model (in the mathematical

Re: The problem with physics

> On 19 Nov 2019, at 16:48, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 8:46:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 18 Nov 2019, at 15:28, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 8:01:12 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> Then a huge

Re: The problem with physics

On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 4:49 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > * "The dependability of counterfactually definite values is a basic assumption, which, together with "time asymmetry" and "local causality" led to the Bell inequalities. Bell showed that the results of experiments

Re: The problem with physics

Question for JC; you want to solve the problem of the evolution of the S's equation after a measurement.. If you accept that the wf tells us about probablilities, why do you insist the probabilities continue to exist after measurement, and thus, that S's equation must continue to exist and the

Re: The problem with physics

On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 1:50 AM John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 5:31 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > then one or both of those assumptions must be false. That was Bell's > entire point, he proposed an exparament to determine if the assumptions > were true or not. It turned

Re: The problem with physics

On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 1:43:54 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/22/2019 11:15 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > *Epistemic interpretations of quantum theory have a measurement problem* > > Quantum Physics and Logic 2019 - https://qpl2019.org/ > &g

Re: The problem with physics

    10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.260404 Cite as:    arXiv:1203.4779 [quant-ph] (or arXiv:1203.4779v3 [quant-ph] for this version) Brent *Epistemic interpretations of quantum theory have a measurement problem* Quantum Physics and Logic 2019 - https://qpl2019.org/ https://qpl2019.org/wp-c

Re: The problem with physics

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 6:42 PM 'Brent Meeker' < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > We now know that a measurement is possible without interacting with the >> thing being measured: >> Interaction-free measurement >> >> So we

Re: The problem with physics

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 5:31 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: then one or both of those assumptions must be false. That was Bell's entire point, he proposed an exparament to determine if the assumptions were true or not. It turned out they were not. >>> >>> *>>> But my point was that

Re: The problem with physics

> Subjects:Quantum Physics (quant-ph) > Journal reference: Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 260404 (2012) > DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.260404 > Cite as:arXiv:1203.4779 [quant-ph] > (or arXiv:1203.4779v3 [quant-ph] for this version) > > > Brent > *Epistemic interpr

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/22/2019 9:35 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 7:02 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 11/22/2019 6:14 AM, John Clark wrote: Why does the act of measurement seem to override the evolution of

Re: The problem with physics

On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 7:02 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 11/22/2019 6:14 AM, John Clark wrote: > > Why does the act of measurement seem to override the evolution of > Schrödinger's wave function, and what exactly does a "measurement" even

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/22/2019 1:33 PM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 3:02 PM 'Brent Meeker' via > wrote: >>Why does the act of measurement seem to override the evolution of Schrödinger's wave function, and what exactly does a

Re: The problem with physics

On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 1:14 AM John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 7:18 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > *>>> I can provide many references which claim that Bell did assume counterfactual definiteness, and this is the reason why his theorem does not apply in many-worlds theory.

Re: The problem with physics

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 3:02 PM 'Brent Meeker' via < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>Why does the act of measurement seem to override the evolution of >> Schrödinger's wave function, and what exactly does a "measurement" even >> mean? Many Worlds is the only interpretation that can

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/22/2019 6:14 AM, John Clark wrote: Why does the act of measurement seem to override the evolution of Schrödinger's wave function, and what exactly does a "measurement" even mean? Many Worlds is the only interpretation that can give a credible answer to that question The

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/22/2019 12:22 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Friday, November 22, 2019 at 12:06:04 AM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/21/2019 9:42 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 6:22:05 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 11/21/2019 11:28 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/22/2019 12:09 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: Well... maybe when you are a 50 years old scientist, you can say that, but this is not the spirit in which science is teached to children or popularized to laymen. The spirit of science popularization is that it gives us the

Re: The problem with physics

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 7:18 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: *>>> I can provide many references which claim that Bell did assume >>> counterfactual definiteness, and this is the reason why his theorem does >>> not apply in many-worlds theory. One prominent example is a paper by >>> Baylock

Re: The problem with physics

On Friday, November 22, 2019 at 1:08:19 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/21/2019 9:54 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > Also models (like Einstein Field Equations) make predictions of outcomes > that are at odds with observations > > > So at last you agree that we use theories to make

Re: The problem with physics

On Friday, November 22, 2019 at 1:06:04 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/21/2019 9:42 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 6:22:05 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/21/2019 11:28 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> They make predictions of outcomes

Re: The problem with physics

On Friday, November 22, 2019 at 12:06:04 AM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/21/2019 9:42 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 6:22:05 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/21/2019 11:28 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> They make predictions of outcomes

Re: The problem with physics

Well... maybe when you are a 50 years old scientist, you can say that, but this is not the spirit in which science is teached to children or popularized to laymen. The spirit of science popularization is that it gives us the truth, and we should obey or die. If scientists are such moral

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/21/2019 9:54 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 11:42:29 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 6:22:05 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 11/21/2019 11:28 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: They make predictions of outcomes

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/21/2019 9:42 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 6:22:05 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 11/21/2019 11:28 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: They make predictions of outcomes whether or not those outcomes are ever observed. It's tautalogous that

Re: The problem with physics

On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 11:42:29 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 6:22:05 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/21/2019 11:28 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> They make predictions of outcomes whether or not those outcomes are ever >>

Re: The problem with physics

On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 6:22:05 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/21/2019 11:28 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > They make predictions of outcomes whether or not those outcomes are ever > observed. > > > It's tautalogous that predictions are of "outcomes". The point was that >

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/21/2019 11:28 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 11:36:33 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 11/20/2019 11:26 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 3:00:25 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 11/20/2019 11:49 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

Re: The problem with physics

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 10:50 AM John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 5:01 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > *> I can provide many references which claim that Bell did assume >> counterfactual definiteness, and this is the reason why his theorem does >> not apply in many-worlds theory. One

Re: The problem with physics

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 5:01 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: *> I can provide many references which claim that Bell did assume > counterfactual definiteness, and this is the reason why his theorem does > not apply in many-worlds theory. One prominent example is a paper by > Baylock (arXiv:0902.3827).* >

Re: The problem with physics

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 1:54 AM John Clark wrote: > > Academic discussion? Mr. Kellett, please stop pretending you have > demonstrated a deep and profound understanding of this subject that others > lack, you have done the exact opposite. After saying something as obviously > true and obviously

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/21/2019 6:53 AM, John Clark wrote: Reality, as the word is used by quantum physicists, means that after an interaction a physical object is always in one and only one state, so by that precise meaning of the word Many Worlds is not a realistic theory. I don't understand why you write

Re: The problem with physics

On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 11:36:33 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/20/2019 11:26 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 3:00:25 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/20/2019 11:49 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, November 20, 2019

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/20/2019 11:26 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 3:00:25 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 11/20/2019 11:49 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 12:59:32 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 11/19/2019 11:41 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:

Re: The problem with physics

The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely

Re: The problem with physics

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 6:51 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: >> You're talking about two different things that deal with different >> subjects. I'm talking about counterfactual definiteness and the subject of >> that is nature, it either has counterfactual definiteness or it doesn't and >> only

Re: The problem with physics

Thanks. I'll do. On Thursday, 21 November 2019 13:21:01 UTC+2, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > Read *Being and Nothingness*, Jean Paul Sartre > > 691 pages - > http://dhspriory.org/kenny/PhilTexts/Sartre/BeingAndNothingness.pdf > > @philipthrift > > -- You received this message because you are

Re: The problem with physics

Read *Being and Nothingness*, Jean Paul Sartre 691 pages - http://dhspriory.org/kenny/PhilTexts/Sartre/BeingAndNothingness.pdf @philipthrift On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 4:49:50 AM UTC-6, Cosmin Visan wrote: > > What about those people that have the desire to know the truth ? What >

Re: The problem with physics

What about those people that have the desire to know the truth ? What should they do with their lives ? On Thursday, 21 November 2019 11:39:56 UTC+2, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > To make technology: to go to the moon, to make air conditioning, > smartphones, TVs, ... > -- You received this

Re: The problem with physics

To make technology: to go to the moon, to make air conditioning, smartphones, TVs, ... @philipthrift On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 3:28:21 AM UTC-6, Cosmin Visan wrote: > > Why are we doing this ? > > On Thursday, 21 November 2019 10:54:59 UTC+2, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> Models are

Re: The problem with physics

Why are we doing this ? On Thursday, 21 November 2019 10:54:59 UTC+2, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > Models are the myths we invent to navigate nature (reality). > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group

Re: The problem with physics

Models are the myths we invent to navigate nature (reality). @philipthrift On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 2:31:09 AM UTC-6, Cosmin Visan wrote: > > What are the models the models of if not of truth ? If models are not > intended to model truth, then what are they intended to do ? Create a

Re: The problem with physics

What are the models the models of if not of truth ? If models are not intended to model truth, then what are they intended to do ? Create a fantastical world for World of Warcraft ? On Friday, 15 November 2019 02:03:14 UTC+2, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > But good luck in life finding the absolute

Re: The problem with physics

to compensate for shortcomings: they put on a mask. So they become scientists, even though they don't understand the purpose of science, and then they think of themselves as being smart, when in fact they are stupid. On Friday, 15 November 2019 00:25:16 UTC+2, Alan Grayson wrote: > > The p

Re: The problem with physics

On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 3:00:25 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/20/2019 11:49 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 12:59:32 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/19/2019 11:41 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at

Re: The problem with physics

On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 5:22:55 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/20/2019 3:28 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 3:00:35 PM UTC-7, scerir wrote: >> >> Nevertheless, the SWE does not give a probability without some further >> assumptions. Why do

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/20/2019 3:28 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 3:00:35 PM UTC-7, scerir wrote: Nevertheless, the SWE does not give a probability without some further assumptions. Why do you think that MWI advocates spend so much time an effort trying to derive

Re: The problem with physics

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 10:37 AM John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 4:53 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > >>I have no idea what the difference is between "text-book" realism and >>> "Eisteinian realism" is and I don't think you do either, in physics there >>> is just realism and

Re: The problem with physics

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 4:53 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: >>I have no idea what the difference is between "text-book" realism and >> "Eisteinian realism" is and I don't think you do either, in physics there >> is just realism and nonrealism. And you don't give any definition of >> "Realism" at all,

Re: The problem with physics

On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 3:00:35 PM UTC-7, scerir wrote: > > Nevertheless, the SWE does not give a probability without some further > assumptions. Why do you think that MWI advocates spend so much time an > effort trying to derive the Born rule? You cannot get probabilities from >

Re: The problem with physics

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 2:42 PM 'Brent Meeker' < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>> *The problem is not how to calculate probabilities, it's what do the > probabilities refer to. * > > >> The best betting strategy to follow if you want to win. > > * > Right. * > So you now think it's

Re: The problem with physics

> Nevertheless, the SWE does not give a probability without some further > assumptions. Why do you think that MWI advocates spend so much time an effort > trying to derive the Born rule? You cannot get probabilities from the > Schroedinger equation without some additional assumptions. > >

Re: The problem with physics

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:52 AM John Clark wrote: > > I have no idea what the difference is between "text-book" realism and > "Eisteinian realism" is and I don't think you do either, in physics there > is just realism and nonrealism. And you don't give any definition of > "Realism" at all, you

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/20/2019 11:49 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 12:59:32 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 11/19/2019 11:41 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 11/19/2019 1:43 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:

Re: The problem with physics

On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 12:59:32 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/19/2019 11:41 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/19/2019 1:43 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> A diffraction pattern emerges in

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/20/2019 2:43 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 5:14 PM 'Brent Meeker'  > wrote: > /The problem is not how to calculate probabilities, it's what do the probabilities refer to. / The best betting strategy to follow if you

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/19/2019 11:41 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 11/19/2019 1:43 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:  A diffraction pattern emerges in video recordings of single-photon double-slit experiments whether anyone sees the

Re: The problem with physics

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 12:50 AM Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> I thought one of the attractions of the many worlds theory was that it >>> was realistic -- in the sense that the wave function really exists a a >>> physical object, >>> >> >> >> I don't know where in the world you got that idea. Even

Re: The problem with physics

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 5:14 PM 'Brent Meeker' < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > *The problem is not how to calculate probabilities, it's what do the > probabilities refer to. * The best betting strategy to follow if you want to win. John K Clark > -- You received this

Re: The problem with physics

On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/19/2019 1:43 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > A diffraction pattern emerges in video recordings of single-photon > double-slit experiments whether anyone sees the video or not. what changes > is the image on the video

Re: The problem with physics

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 1:58 AM John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 5:26 AM Bruce Kellett > wrote > >> You can if the theory is deterministic but not realistic as Many > Worlds is, that is to say if a deterministic interaction between 2 > particles always produces more than one

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/19/2019 1:54 PM, John Clark wrote: />The Born rule is a way of predicting probabilities.   But how do these probabilities apply in MWI.   Do they apply to "observations"...but there are no observations in MWI;/ You can have observations in MWI if you want, it's just that

Re: The problem with physics

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 8:55 AM John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 2:30 PM 'Brent Meeker' < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > >>Anything that does not violate the laws of physics, particularly >>> quantum physics, can happen. >> >> >> * > That's not quite right. Events

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/19/2019 1:47 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 12:29:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 11/19/2019 12:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 1:48:50 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: Schrödinger says absolutely nothing about

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/19/2019 1:43 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 12:27:21 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 11/19/2019 12:30 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 6:50:38 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 11/18/2019 4:33 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:

Re: The problem with physics

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 2:30 PM 'Brent Meeker' < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>Anything that does not violate the laws of physics, particularly quantum >> physics, can happen. > > > * > That's not quite right. Events inconsistent with the laws of physics > can't happen. But also

Re: The problem with physics

On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 12:29:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/19/2019 12:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 1:48:50 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > Schrödinger says absolutely nothing about [wave function collapse, it was >> tacked on by

  1   2   >