Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 7:36 PM LizR  wrote:

*> *
>
> *Wasn't something similar said about atoms? (Not that this is proof, more
> a "they laughed at Copernicus, and now they're laughing at me, so I must be
> right too" sort of argument).*


As far as the existence of atoms are concerned, chemists were way ahead of
physicists (and biologists and geologists had a much better estimate of the
age of the Earth than physicists did). It took Einstein's 1905 paper to
fully convince physicists that atoms were real things and not just an
abstract computational device. And that reminds me of something else, in
the late 1960s physicist Bryce DeWitt told the Many World inventor Hugh
Everett that he couldn't pinpoint an error in his ideas but there must be
one somewhere because he didn't feel like he was constantly splitting;
Everett  responded by asking "do you feel like you're rotating at thousands
of miles an hour around the sun?". DeWitt admitted that was a pretty good
answer and just a few years later DeWitt  became one of the strongest
advocates of Hugh Everett's ideas, in fact I think it was Dewitt and not
Everett who coined the term "Many Worlds".

  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
pga



> On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 at 00:58, John Clark  wrote:
> >
> > I read an article called The multiverse is unscientific nonsense by
> Jacob Barandes, a lecturer in physics at Harvard University, and I wrote a
> letter to professor Barandes commenting on it. He responded with a very
> polite letter saying he read it and appreciated what I said but didn't have
> time to comment further. This is the letter I sent:
> > ===
> >
> > Hello Professor Barandes
> >
> > I read your article The multiverse is unscientific nonsense with
> interest and I have a few comments:
> >
> > Nobody is claiming that the existence of the multiverse is a proven
> fact, but I think the idea needs to be taken seriously because:
> >
> > 1) Unlike Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation, the Many Worlds theory is
> clear about what it's saying.
> > 2) It is self consistent and conforms with all known experimental
> results.
> > 3) It has no need to speculate about new physics as objective wave
> collapse theories like GRW do.
> > 4) It doesn't have to explain what consciousness or a measurement is
> because they have nothing to do with it, all it needs is Schrodinger's
> equation.
> >
> > I don't see how you can explain counterfactual quantum reasoning and
> such things as the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester without making use of many
> worlds. Hugh Everett would say that by having a bomb in a universe we are
> not in explode we can tell if a bomb that is in the branch of the
> multiverse that we are in is a dud or is a live fully functional bomb.  You
> say that many worlds needs to account for probability and that's true, but
> then you say many worlds demands that some worlds have “higher
> probabilities than others" but that is incorrect. According to many worlds
> there is one and only one universe for every quantum state that is not
> forbidden by the laws of physics. So when you flip a coin the universe
> splits many more times than twice because there are a vast number, perhaps
> an infinite number, of places where a coin could land, but you are not
> interested in exactly where the coin lands, you're only interested if it
> lands heads or tails. And we've known for centuries how to obtain a useful
> probability between any two points on the continuous bell curve even though
> the continuous curve is made up of an unaccountably infinite number of
> points, all we need to do is perform a simple integration to figure out
> which part of the bell curve we're most likely on.
> >
> > Yes, that's a lot of worlds, but you shouldn't object that the
> multiverse really couldn't be that big unless you are a stout defender of
> the idea that the universe must be finite, because even if many worlds
> turns out to be untrue the universe could still be infinite and an infinity
> plus an infinity is still the an infinity with the same Aleph number. Even
> if there is only one universe if it's infinite then a finite distance away
> there must be a doppelgänger of you because, although there are a huge
> number of quantum states your body could be in, that number is not
> infinite, but the universe is.
> >
> > And Occam's razor is about an economy of assumptions not an economy of
> results.  As for the "Tower of assumptions" many worlds is supposed to be
> based on, the only assumption that many worlds makes is that Schrodinger's
> equation means what it says, and it says nothing about the wave function

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[LizR]

Wasn't something similar said about atoms? (Not that this is proof,
more a "they laughed at Copernicus, and now they're laughing at me, so
I must be right too" sort of argument). But as (or if) I understand
it, multiverses are speculations that reduce problems elsewhere. To
loosely quote Max Tegmark, an M-theory multiverse goes some way
towards answering the question "why these particular laws of physics?"
while a quantum multiverse rigorously answers the question "why this
particular history?"

On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 at 00:58, John Clark  wrote:
>
> I read an article called The multiverse is unscientific nonsense by Jacob 
> Barandes, a lecturer in physics at Harvard University, and I wrote a letter 
> to professor Barandes commenting on it. He responded with a very polite 
> letter saying he read it and appreciated what I said but didn't have time to 
> comment further. This is the letter I sent:
> ===
>
> Hello Professor Barandes
>
> I read your article The multiverse is unscientific nonsense with interest and 
> I have a few comments:
>
> Nobody is claiming that the existence of the multiverse is a proven fact, but 
> I think the idea needs to be taken seriously because:
>
> 1) Unlike Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation, the Many Worlds theory is clear 
> about what it's saying.
> 2) It is self consistent and conforms with all known experimental results.
> 3) It has no need to speculate about new physics as objective wave collapse 
> theories like GRW do.
> 4) It doesn't have to explain what consciousness or a measurement is because 
> they have nothing to do with it, all it needs is Schrodinger's equation.
>
> I don't see how you can explain counterfactual quantum reasoning and such 
> things as the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester without making use of many worlds. 
> Hugh Everett would say that by having a bomb in a universe we are not in 
> explode we can tell if a bomb that is in the branch of the multiverse that we 
> are in is a dud or is a live fully functional bomb.  You say that many worlds 
> needs to account for probability and that's true, but then you say many 
> worlds demands that some worlds have “higher probabilities than others" but 
> that is incorrect. According to many worlds there is one and only one 
> universe for every quantum state that is not forbidden by the laws of 
> physics. So when you flip a coin the universe splits many more times than 
> twice because there are a vast number, perhaps an infinite number, of places 
> where a coin could land, but you are not interested in exactly where the coin 
> lands, you're only interested if it lands heads or tails. And we've known for 
> centuries how to obtain a useful probability between any two points on the 
> continuous bell curve even though the continuous curve is made up of an 
> unaccountably infinite number of points, all we need to do is perform a 
> simple integration to figure out which part of the bell curve we're most 
> likely on.
>
> Yes, that's a lot of worlds, but you shouldn't object that the multiverse 
> really couldn't be that big unless you are a stout defender of the idea that 
> the universe must be finite, because even if many worlds turns out to be 
> untrue the universe could still be infinite and an infinity plus an infinity 
> is still the an infinity with the same Aleph number. Even if there is only 
> one universe if it's infinite then a finite distance away there must be a 
> doppelgänger of you because, although there are a huge number of quantum 
> states your body could be in, that number is not infinite, but the universe 
> is.
>
> And Occam's razor is about an economy of assumptions not an economy of 
> results.  As for the "Tower of assumptions" many worlds is supposed to be 
> based on, the only assumption that many worlds makes is that Schrodinger's 
> equation means what it says, and it says nothing about the wave function 
> collapsing. I would maintain that many worlds is bare-bones no-nonsense 
> quantum mechanics with none of the silly bells and whistles that other 
> theories stick on that do nothing but get rid of those  pesky other worlds 
> that keep cropping up that they personally dislike for some reason. And since 
> Everett's time other worlds do seem to keep popping up and in completely 
> unrelated fields, such as string theory and inflationary cosmology.
>
> You also ask what a “rational observer” is and how they ought to behave, and 
> place bets on future events, given their self-locating uncertainty. I agree 
> with David Hume who said that "ought" cannot be derived from "is", but 
> "ought" can be derived from "want". So if an observer is a gambler that WANTS 
> to make money but 

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Bruce Kellett]

On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:42 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 5:24 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> *> that fact is not central, despite the ramblings on Wikipedia.*
>>
>
> It is my experience that when a debate opponent resorts to disparageing
> the accuracy of Wikipedia I know that I've backed him into a corner and
> he's desperate. Would it really hurt that much to just admit you're wrong?
>

Wikipedia is not authoritative. It is just someone's opinion.

*I don't recall you ever giving a sound argument in favour of this view.*
>>
>
> Then you have a remarkably poor memory! I'll tell you what I remember,
> writing several rather detailed posts and you just saying I was wrong with
> no specifics. If you think something I said was not sound then please point
> it out, I doubt it but maybe it'll even turn out you're right and then I'll
> have to change my worldview, but to do that you'll have to pinpoint exactly
> where I went wrong.  Next I expect you to say that I made so many errors
> that you are unable to pick out a single one.
>

Perhaps that is the case. But you have not ever derived the Born rule from
MWI, so I can stand by that.

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/CAFxXSLSuFSnq8H1Mi5XJKU5ZAw-5zrvwkDtmwiwC1Nnvqpgv9A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 5:24 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:


*> that fact is not central, despite the ramblings on Wikipedia.*
>

It is my experience that when a debate opponent resorts to disparageing the
accuracy of Wikipedia I know that I've backed him into a corner and he's
desperate. Would it really hurt that much to just admit you're wrong?


*I don't recall you ever giving a sound argument in favour of this view.*
>

Then you have a remarkably poor memory! I'll tell you what I remember,
writing several rather detailed posts and you just saying I was wrong with
no specifics. If you think something I said was not sound then please point
it out, I doubt it but maybe it'll even turn out you're right and then I'll
have to change my worldview, but to do that you'll have to pinpoint exactly
where I went wrong.  Next I expect you to say that I made so many errors
that you are unable to pick out a single one.

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

wbw




>

-- 
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/CAJPayv3%2BNoEpxq%2BZ59Yq-uhneSkDOHJEiHtUL_tnMh0q6UekLw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Bruce Kellett]

On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:11 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 4:29 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> *>>> You don't have to be a mathematical realist to believe that adding
 one apple to another apple in the bowl gives you two apples.*

>>>
>>> >> But what about an orange? If you're not a realist and so don't even
>>> know if "orange" is a noun or an adjective, and the inside of the bowl is
>>> already orange, then adding more orange will change nothing. And if an
>>> apple isn't real then why does the bowl weigh more when there are two
>>> apples in it then when there was just one? There is no doubt that the Born
>>> Rule works, if you're not interested in understanding why it works then you
>>> never have to bother with the Many Worlds idea.
>>>
>>
>> *> I did say mathematical realist. One can believe apples and oranges
>> really exist without being a mathematical realist!*
>>
>
> According to Wikipedia "*mathematical realism is the view that
> mathematical truths are objective and exist independently of the human mind*
> ". I then asked the AI Claude and it said something very similar but
> added that mathematical realists believe *"Mathematical statements are
> objectively true or false. For example, the statement 2 + 2 = 4 is always
> true, independent of what any human believes about it*." So you *DO* have
> to be a mathematical realist to believe that adding one apple to another
> apple in a bowl gives you two apples.
>


That does not follow. Besides, mathematical realism is the belief that
mathematical objects really exist. That might make statements about
mathematical statements being objectively true or false, but that fact is
not central, despite the ramblings on Wikipedia.


*> Besides, many worlds gives no understanding of why the Born rule works
> since the Born rule cannot be derived within MWI.*
>

You've made the same accusation before and I gave a detailed response as to
why I think you are incorrect and why Many Worlds give a better
understanding of why the Born rule is what it is than any other quantum
interpretation. You didn't specifically refute anything I said, you just
waved your hands around and said I was wrong.

I don't recall you ever giving a sound argument in favour of this view. As
I remember, you just wittered on about the Born rule being experimentally
true, and therefore not in need of justification. I have pointed out that
such a view is nonsense. You either have to make the Born rule an explicit
additional assumption, or else derive it from something. You have not
derived it from MWI.

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/CAFxXSLT4APJosjtkFWSkW1iE8jyLhR6ZxZgki-EZbzsM54q5Jg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 4:29 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*>>> You don't have to be a mathematical realist to believe that adding one
>>> apple to another apple in the bowl gives you two apples.*
>>>
>>
>> >> But what about an orange? If you're not a realist and so don't even
>> know if "orange" is a noun or an adjective, and the inside of the bowl is
>> already orange, then adding more orange will change nothing. And if an
>> apple isn't real then why does the bowl weigh more when there are two
>> apples in it then when there was just one? There is no doubt that the Born
>> Rule works, if you're not interested in understanding why it works then you
>> never have to bother with the Many Worlds idea.
>>
>
> *> I did say mathematical realist. One can believe apples and oranges
> really exist without being a mathematical realist!*
>

According to Wikipedia "*mathematical realism is the view that mathematical
truths are objective and exist independently of the human mind*". I then
asked the AI Claude and it said something very similar but added that
mathematical realists believe *"Mathematical statements are objectively
true or false. For example, the statement 2 + 2 = 4 is always true,
independent of what any human believes about it*." So you *DO* have to
be a mathematical
realist to believe that adding one apple to another apple in a bowl gives
you two apples.

*> Besides, many worlds gives no understanding of why the Born rule works
> since the Born rule cannot be derived within MWI.*
>

You've made the same accusation before and I gave a detailed response as to
why I think you are incorrect and why Many Worlds give a better
understanding of why the Born rule is what it is than any other quantum
interpretation. You didn't specifically refute anything I said, you just
waved your hands around and said I was wrong.

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

siw

-- 
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/CAJPayv3XTgY0x%3Djs464m%2B1TNC0M5meXB-PGOW%2BBo7qR4cXTrOQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Bruce Kellett]

On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 11:27 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 3, 2023 at 5:11 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> *> You don't have to be a mathematical realist to believe that adding one
>> apple to another apple in the bowl gives you two apples.*
>>
>
> But what about an orange? If you're not a realist and so don't even know
> if "orange" is a noun or an adjective, and the inside of the bowl is
> already orange, then adding more orange will change nothing. And if an
> apple isn't real then why does the bowl weigh more when there are two
> apples in it then when there was just one? There is no doubt that the Born
> Rule works, if you're not interested in understanding why it works then you
> never have to bother with the Many Worlds idea.
>

I did say *mathematical* realist. One can believe apples and oranges really
exist without being a mathematical realist!

Besides, many worlds gives no understanding of why the Born rule works
since the Born rule cannot be derived within MWI.

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/CAFxXSLTXo0kd5Vd7v-u8f45gy%3DfcrfW0gmjHME4Y4gM1xa62Kw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

On Sun, Dec 3, 2023 at 5:11 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*> You don't have to be a mathematical realist to believe that adding one
> apple to another apple in the bowl gives you two apples.*
>

But what about an orange? If you're not a realist and so don't even know if
"orange" is a noun or an adjective, and the inside of the bowl is already
orange, then adding more orange will change nothing. And if an apple isn't
real then why does the bowl weigh more when there are two apples in it then
when there was just one? There is no doubt that the Born Rule works, if
you're not interested in understanding why it works then you never have to
bother with the Many Worlds idea.

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

wao

-- 
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/CAJPayv09468hb2%2BryuwCamL46RwMyXXL46HH0dHPi%3DsBxLLGMQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Bruce Kellett]

On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 11:18 AM smitra  wrote:

> On 24-11-2023 10:49, Brent Meeker wrote:
> >
> > That doesn't seem to get rid of probability.  How will you empirically
> > confirm that you need less information to specify X than Y.  You will
> > still need frequentist statistics.
>
> That's true from an empiric point of view. The idea is that after many
> experiments the state corresponding to a typical outcome can be
> described with less information that states that have atypical outcomes.
>
>   And I don't see that "specify" is
> > the right word.  X may be up and Y down so they each take the same
> > information to specify, but X may be much more probably than Y.
> >
>
> Yes, that can happen when specifying the outcome of a few experiments.
> In case of specifying the outcome of a large set of experiments, then
> one set will be far more compressible given the prior information of the
> experimental setup than the other set.
>

In any run of an experiment with binary outcomes, for N trials (N large),
the result is going to be a sequence of N 0/1 bits. Any run from this set
contains as much information as any other run, and is no more compressible.
It is only when you do statistics on the outcomes that the notion of a
"typical" set can be defined. If any arbitrary set is chosen as "typical",
then the expected statistics will be different. For example, if you start
from the set with N/100 0's and 99N/100 1's, the probability of getting a 1
is greater than if you start with a set with approximately the same number
of 0's and 1's.

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/CAFxXSLRxQAFz6VdnaO2P2r2KofB9Dq2hJpyoREOD-yudFzKWpg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[smitra]

On 24-11-2023 10:49, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/23/2023 10:38 PM, smitra wrote:

On 23-11-2023 22:12, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/23/2023 2:26 AM, John Clark wrote:


On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 5:55 PM Brent Meeker 
wrote:


Bohr insisted that we treat electrons as quantum objects but our

measuring instruments as classical objects. He also insisted that
human observers were classical objects, but he never specified
exactly where the dividing line between the quantum world and the
classical world was. And if that dividing line isn't the "Heisenberg
cut" then what is? But to be fair to you it's difficult to know
exactly what Bohr endorsed because much of his philosophical prose
is virtually unreadable; that's one reason the Copenhagen adherence
can't agree about fundamentally important things even among
themselves.

The point is that Bohr (unlike Heisenberg) didn't regard the "cut"

as part of physics.  It was a choice of our description.  It could
be chosen anywhere up to the macroscopic


OK, but Let me ask you this, like Bohr does that explanation satisfy
your curiosity about the fundamental nature of reality so much that
you don’t think anybody should even try to find something better, so
we should just give up? No, but we shouldn't adopt a just-so-story 
out

of desperation to avoid saying, "We don't know."


Are you absolutely certain nobody will ever find an explanation a
little more satisfying than that?

 Are you absolutely certain that the long sought theory of quantum
gravity will not change our view of QM?


Should Galileo have been satisfied with "things fall to the ground
because it is their nature to do so", should Newton have been
satisfied with that, or Einstein?  If we never even try to find
something better than that we will certainly never find it.

 You're the one who is saying, "I've found the truth and it's MWI."
Not me.  You criticize me because QBism isn't _enough_ interpretation
for you.  It leaves too much open.


_> This more like QBism_


Nobody is saying that QBism a.k.a. Copenhagen, a.k.a. Shut Up And
Calculate, doesn’t work; if you’re an Engineer who doesn't care
what's going on and just wants to make money with a new gadget
it’s fine.

 But it's gone beyond Copenhagen and cleaned up some of Copenhagen's
vagueness by taking advantage of deoherence theory.






Experimental results are necessary but they are not sufficient,

you also need a theory to make sense of it all, otherwise it's just
a bunch of numbers.







_ > Experimental results include theoretical interpretations which
get written up in arXiv.org, all of which are macroscopic and
classical so we can all read them and agree on what they say. _


Everybody agrees on what the results of an experiment are, but they
disagree about what they mean. Without the General Theory Of
Relativity the LIGO results are just squiggles produced by 2 mirrors 
2

1/2 miles apart. So the mirrors squiggle, who cares?






_> it's all NECESSARILY CLASSICA_


Using only classical concepts explain to me how and why the Quantum
Eraser Experiment works. The explanation is in print which is
classical.


Anyway you're sure Many Worlds is better than than just noting

that probability means one thing happens and others don't.


That's not what probability means.

 But that's what it needs to mean to explain empirical results.


Probability is a real number between zero and one that can be used
to make money by making bets on what you will see next provided you
only make bets when that number is greater than 0.5 and you make
enough bets. And quantum mechanics can tell you what that number is.


 But MWI says all the bets win.  It doesn't tell you will only see 
one

result.  It doesn't take the probabilities seriously.  How is it even
an interpretation without interpreting the Born rule.  When I think 
of

MWI I think "results become orthogonal"  should say "...and then all
but one vanish."  But that violates the dogma that only the
Schroedinger equation is needed.



If all bets win, then you would still only see one result. Probability 
is not a well-defined physical concept anyway:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzSE4Hoxbc=1036s

This also means that MWI is likely also not the final answer, but the 
implied multiverse aspect of Nature is hard to escape. It's similar to 
the position Einstein was in when he had very powerful arguments why 
gravity should be described as curved spacetime before he had found 
the field equations.


I think it makes much more sense to ditch probability altogether as a 
fundamental concept and instead use information as the more 
fundamental concept. If I observe the result of an experiment, then I 
obtain new in formation. I started out as a container of a massive 
amount of information that defines exactly who I am (or actually that 
part of it that I am aware of myself). So, before the measurement the 
fact that it's me that is about to do the measurement, not someone 
else is part of the observation. 

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Bruce Kellett]

On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 8:56 AM Jason Resch  wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 3, 2023, 4:40 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>> I don't think the Born rule is implied by MWI; but it's already known to
>> be the only rational way to define a probability measure on a Hilbert space
>> (Gleason's theorem).  So in a sense it's implicit in QM regardless of
>> interpretation.
>>
>> QBism, which is a version of CI+decoherence is at least as rational as
>> MWI.  I think the proper measure of an interpretation is whether they
>> suggest improvements and experiments.  MWI may be better in that respect.
>>
>
> QBism, like other non-realist theories, can't account for the
> effectiveness of quantum computers (unless one believes that non-real
> things can have real, detectable effects (like producing the solution to
> factoring a large semiprime)). But if you are realist about the wave
> function, then you are dealing with MW, not QBism.
>

You don't have to be a mathematical realist to believe that adding one
apple to another apple in the bowl gives you two apples.

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/CAFxXSLSBGXLnjeC26cR1FsFYPXmsXFmD2H4%3DKviTq19USc51gg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Jason Resch]

On Sun, Dec 3, 2023, 4:40 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

> I don't think the Born rule is implied by MWI; but it's already known to
> be the only rational way to define a probability measure on a Hilbert space
> (Gleason's theorem).  So in a sense it's implicit in QM regardless of
> interpretation.
>
> QBism, which is a version of CI+decoherence is at least as rational as
> MWI.  I think the proper measure of an interpretation is whether they
> suggest improvements and experiments.  MWI may be better in that respect.
>

QBism, like other non-realist theories, can't account for the effectiveness
of quantum computers (unless one believes that non-real things can have
real, detectable effects (like producing the solution to factoring a large
semiprime)). But if you are realist about the wave function, then you are
dealing with MW, not QBism.

Jason


> Brent
>
> 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.
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
> 
> 7ff
>
>
>
>
>> --
> 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/CAJPayv00iaJKxfguE7bjmyViNO3nYnCtEaNf9o9fs81yOtAYBg%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/3d467c95-5d40-4552-abd9-9b5736f69ee0%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%2BBCJUgA%3DxbyimvnxNUxf9ETaiSy0X%2BE4n4NtNKVw5wiHWCoBQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Brent Meeker]

I don't think the Born rule is implied by MWI; but it's already known to 
be the only rational way to define a probability measure on a Hilbert 
space (Gleason's theorem).  So in a sense it's implicit in QM regardless 
of interpretation.


QBism, which is a version of CI+decoherence is at least as rational as 
MWI.  I think the proper measure of an interpretation is whether they 
suggest improvements and experiments.  MWI may be better in that respect.


Brent

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 mustadd 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.


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


7ff




--
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/CAJPayv00iaJKxfguE7bjmyViNO3nYnCtEaNf9o9fs81yOtAYBg%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/3d467c95-5d40-4552-abd9-9b5736f69ee0%40gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

['scerir' via Everything List]

Mermin and Hartle wrote about "Now"

https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/67/3/8/1017354/Commentary-What-I-think-about-Now?
 
https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/67/9/8/414845/Classical-and-quantum-framing-of-the-Now?
 
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0403001
 
 

-- 
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/41024.4764744.1701419464706%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 4:16 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>> If somebody proposes a theory that would have profound physical and
>> philosophical implications and a key ingredient of that theory is something
>> called "measurement " that seems to have magical abilities and nobody can
>> even approximately explain what a measurement is, much less how it works
>> it's magic, then that theory is 100% extra virgin triple distilled premium
>> grade CRAP.
>
>
> *> Decoherence theory does explain what a measurement is.*
>


 But can you do so without using the word "superposition" and explaining
exactly what the word means? Many worlds can.
Coincidentally this excellent PBS space-time video was posted just about an
hour ago:


 Can The Measurement Problem Be Solved?


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

1ha

>
>
>

-- 
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/CAJPayv0nAfGTMZQUJiTQo6p%2BbKXwdRmSkk-WJ-5up17bKY2uOg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Brent Meeker]

On 11/30/2023 4:33 AM, John Clark wrote:




On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 4:39 PM Brent Meeker  
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?
/

//
Yes. If somebody proposes a theory that would have profound physical 
and philosophical implications and a key ingredient of that theory is 
something called "measurement " that seems to have magical abilities 
and nobody can even approximately explain what a measurement is, much 
less how it works it's magic, then that theory is 100% extra virgin 
triple distilled premium grade CRAP.


Decoherence theory does explain what a measurement is.  But I guess it's 
easier just to keep saying everything you don't know is crap.


Brent



Speaking of crap, Einstein once asked Niels Bohr a very interesting 
question, "/do you believe the moon doesn't exist when you're not 
looking at it?/". Apparently Bohr's response has been lost to history.


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


atc




--
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/CAJPayv0Q%3DDhMPgW5faz54Cde%3D-Vne6WjNVvBO10-mr4GbqsPDA%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/651fbee8-84da-4bea-9cbd-edfa0ce2e41a%40gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 4:02 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 11/29/2023 11:23 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 <
 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).
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>
> I don't recall what diagram was being referenced.  But I have no problem
> with talking about past (or even future) world lines.  But I regard them as
> constructs to help our thinking.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> 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).
>
>
> So you, here and now, have many pasts.  Is that a well accepted
> implication of relativity?
>


No that's relativity+QM. If you only assumed relativity then there would be
one already-extant future for you.

Jaso



> 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/d09199d0-9576-4cab-9e20-bff55a313468%40gmail.com
> 

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Brent Meeker]

On 11/29/2023 11:23 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



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  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.


I don't recall what diagram was being referenced.  But I have no problem 
with talking about past (or even future) world lines.  But I regard them 
as constructs to help our thinking.








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).


So you, here and now, have many pasts.  Is that a well accepted 
implication of relativity?


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/d09199d0-9576-4cab-9e20-bff55a313468%40gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 9:13 AM 'scerir' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:


> *> On playing gods: The fallacy of the many-worlds
> interpretationhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2311.03467
> *
>

According to the abstract, the main problem with the Many Worlds
interpretation is that " in order to reproduce the observed empirical
evidence about any concrete quantum measurement outcome, they require as a
tacit assumption that the theory does in fact apply to an arbitrarily large
range of phenomena". But unless you have concrete reasons for thinking
otherwise, I think that is a reasonable assumption to make, it is certainly
better than the assumption that a principle can never apply to anything
that has not yet been proven to exist, or the assumption that if something
hasn't been proven to exist then it can't exist.  And at least Many Worlds
tries to explain how the quantum realm can possibly behave so weirdly;
Copenhagen, a.k.a. Shut Up And Calculate, says don't even try to understand
it, just give up.

John K Clark



>
>

-- 
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/CAJPayv131ODAZbcz%2B8tQCn20Lb2Wqv%3DZrc87bRhH%2BGf%2Bf9Yfog%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

['scerir' via Everything List]

Just two links

Tel-Aviv conference on MWI (2022), many videos

https://www.mwi2022tau.com/   https://www.mwi2022tau.com/


On playing gods: The fallacy of the many-worlds interpretation

https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.03467

 

-- 
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/348418583.1275931.1701353617852%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 7:33 AM John Clark  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 4:39 PM Brent Meeker 
> 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 neither could
>> explain why Schrodinger's equation and the Born rule treat 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?*
>>
>
> Yes. If somebody proposes a theory that would have profound physical and
> philosophical implications and a key ingredient of that theory is something
> called "measurement " that seems to have magical abilities and nobody can
> even approximately explain what a measurement is, much less how it works
> it's magic, then that theory is 100% extra virgin triple distilled premium
> grade CRAP.
>
> Speaking of crap, Einstein once asked Niels Bohr a very interesting
> question, "*do you believe the moon doesn't exist when you're not looking
> at it?*". Apparently Bohr's response has been lost to history.
>


I believe it was Pais that he asked this question to, but he was in the
same camp of the non-realists like Bohr.

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%2BBCJUh57ysoaFTUPyUWvog9k-oDf1xc5Je51jywcwgcL_aACQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 4:39 PM Brent Meeker  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 neither could
> explain why Schrodinger's equation and the Born rule treat 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?*
>

Yes. If somebody proposes a theory that would have profound physical and
philosophical implications and a key ingredient of that theory is something
called "measurement " that seems to have magical abilities and nobody can
even approximately explain what a measurement is, much less how it works
it's magic, then that theory is 100% extra virgin triple distilled premium
grade CRAP.

Speaking of crap, Einstein once asked Niels Bohr a very interesting
question, "*do you believe the moon doesn't exist when you're not looking
at it?*". Apparently Bohr's response has been lost to history.

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

atc

-- 
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/CAJPayv0Q%3DDhMPgW5faz54Cde%3D-Vne6WjNVvBO10-mr4GbqsPDA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

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

*> **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.*


If for things to work out for the Many World's idea the number had to be 42
or 697 or a googolplex then your argument might be a little stronger, but
the number 1 seems less contrived to me.  But there is a much stronger
reason to think that the ratio between an observer and a change in a
quantum state has to be 1, the No-cloning theorem. It says it's impossible
for 2 or more particles to be in a precisely identical quantum state, or to
be more precise, it says it's impossible to* *observe** 2 or more particles
that are in the same quantum state. So the number of branches that are
created each time a quantum state changes can't be just any old number.

*No-cloning theorem* 

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

yyu

-- 
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/CAJPayv0HCgspJrZzaYT0rq2asUbg57rmyJ%3DYnkTcRDsZP7CPOg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Jason Resch]

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??

[Brent Meeker]

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??

[Jason Resch]

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??

[Jason Resch]

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??

[Bruce Kellett]

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??

[Brent Meeker]

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

--
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/d9f3533b-019f-4c81-a12d-2a7afd5ec264%40gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Brent Meeker]

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 
.


--
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.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Jason Resch]

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??

[Bruce Kellett]

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??

[Jason Resch]

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??

[Bruce Kellett]

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??

[Brent Meeker]

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

--
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.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Jason Resch]

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??

[Bruce Kellett]

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??

[Brent Meeker]

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??

[Brent Meeker]

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 
.


--
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/103cb04f-2d10-4026-98ee-53e35245b6f9%40gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Jason Resch]

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??

[Brent Meeker]

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 mustadd 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.


Brent



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


7ff




--
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/CAJPayv00iaJKxfguE7bjmyViNO3nYnCtEaNf9o9fs81yOtAYBg%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/91ab1848-2b75-456d-b87f-2f2691a2066c%40gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

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 neither could explain
why Schrodinger's equation and the Born rule treat 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.
 John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

kik



>

-- 
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/CAJPayv2zV2RsqRv1QB_OrQWO8JekQ3joxAauGywZuXB4GXzbhw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

['scerir' via Everything List]

[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. We need only 
accept that all conceivable universes are equally 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

 

 

-- 
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??

[John Clark]

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.

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

7ff




>

-- 
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/CAJPayv00iaJKxfguE7bjmyViNO3nYnCtEaNf9o9fs81yOtAYBg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Stathis Papaioannou]

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

> 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.
>

“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.

-- 
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%3D2ypV0Y8HVzY6q54ib7Mz_WX2ECbpLYpDsjTfFCnGxpHJNqw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 6:49 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*> the Born rule is incompatible with MWI. It is not incompatible with the
> CI.*


Nothing is incompatible with CI and nothing is compatible with it either
because nobody knows what the hell CI is saying, and that includes Niels
Bohr.

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

bni

-- 
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/CAJPayv3er8p1oJ7SZfJQxF1k5FPNHt5fHfiiV1G2OPZpOAmmdg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Bruce Kellett]

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??

[Stathis Papaioannou]

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??

[Brent Meeker]

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??

[Bruce Kellett]

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??

[Brent Meeker]

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??

[Stathis Papaioannou]

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??

[Bruce Kellett]

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??

[Stathis Papaioannou]

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??

[Bruce Kellett]

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??

[Bruce Kellett]

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??

[Stathis Papaioannou]

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??

[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??

[Bruce Kellett]

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??

[John Clark]

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??

[Bruce Kellett]

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??

[John Clark]

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??

[Bruce Kellett]

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??

[John Clark]

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??

[Bruce Kellett]

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??

[John Clark]

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??

[Bruce Kellett]

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??

[Brent Meeker]

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??

[Bruce Kellett]

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??

[John Clark]

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??

[Bruce Kellett]

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??

[John Clark]

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??

[Bruce Kellett]

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??

[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??

[Brent Meeker]

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??

[John Clark]

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??

[Brent Meeker]

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 
.


--
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.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

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.

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.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Bruce Kellett]

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

> On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 8:07 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> >> There are a googolplex number of Bruce Kelletts, all of which are in
>>> very slightly different quantum states but they all observe that, although
>>> Schrodinger's cat is in slightly different quantum states, the cat is alive
>>> in all of them. And there are 3 googolplexes of Bruce Kelletts, all of
>>> which are in very slightly different quantum states but they all observe
>>> that, although Schrodinger's cat is in slightly different quantum states,
>>> the cat is dead in all of them. Therefore if Bruce Kellett had no other
>>> information than before he opened the box he would bet that there is
>>> only one chance in four he would see an alive cat when the box was opened.
>>>
>>
>> *>Nonsense. Where did the 3:1 ratio come from?*
>>
>
> From the square root of the absolute value of a complex wave function
> produced by Schrodinger's equation. You don't need Many Worlds or any other
> quantum interpretation to find the correct probability, Shut Up And
> Calculate will give you that,  you only need Many Worlds if you wanna
> figure out what must be going on under the hood that enables an absurd
> theory like quantum mechanics to make predictions that actually turn out to
> be correct.
>
> *> I know the decay rate of the radioactive source. I can arrange to open
>> the box when there is only a 10% chance that the atom has decayed.*
>>
>
> Obviously.  Change the radioactive source to an element with a different
> half life and you'll change the probability, and you will also change the
> probability if you change the amount of time the cat is in the box.
>
> * > In that case I clearly have a 90% chance of seeing a live cat when I
>> open the box. Similarly, I can arrange for any probability between zero and
>> one of seeing a live cat. Whereas, if there is always a live cat branch and
>> a dead cat branch, my probability of seeing a live cat is always 50%,
>> contrary to the laws of radioactive decay.*
>>
>
> That would be true only if the cat had one and only one property, the
> alive/dead property. But, except for Black Holes, all macroscopic objects
> have an astronomical number of properties and most of them are not binary,
> however in the cat thought experiment you're only interested in one of them
> and it is binary, the alive/dead property. You're not interested in the
> precise position or momentum of a particular electron in the cat's left
> toenail. So there are an astronomical number of cats, and there are an
> astronomical number of Bruce Kelletts, and all of them are in very slightly
> different quantum states, but the astronomical number of Bruce Kelletts who
> observe a living cat when the box is opened is 9 times larger than the
> astronomical number Bruce Kelletts who observe a dead cat.  So before the
> box was opened all the Bruce Kelletts would expect to see a living cat, but
> 10% of them would be surprised.
>

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

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRyaGgH3VR3etd8WbcVLnqqxZMnLSka-KAvTCu1yBPDDw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

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


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

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

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

ixe

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2naNMf0%3D4m_dCvFOo7HkFLH%2B98-CUXi%2BgcO%3DC2%3DhdTUA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

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

>> There are a googolplex number of Bruce Kelletts, all of which are in
>> very slightly different quantum states but they all observe that, although
>> Schrodinger's cat is in slightly different quantum states, the cat is alive
>> in all of them. And there are 3 googolplexes of Bruce Kelletts, all of
>> which are in very slightly different quantum states but they all observe
>> that, although Schrodinger's cat is in slightly different quantum states,
>> the cat is dead in all of them. Therefore if Bruce Kellett had no other
>> information than before he opened the box he would bet that there is
>> only one chance in four he would see an alive cat when the box was opened.
>>
>
> *>Nonsense. Where did the 3:1 ratio come from?*
>

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

*> I know the decay rate of the radioactive source. I can arrange to open
> the box when there is only a 10% chance that the atom has decayed.*
>

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

* > In that case I clearly have a 90% chance of seeing a live cat when I
> open the box. Similarly, I can arrange for any probability between zero and
> one of seeing a live cat. Whereas, if there is always a live cat branch and
> a dead cat branch, my probability of seeing a live cat is always 50%,
> contrary to the laws of radioactive decay.*
>

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


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

y9%

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3fN8eE%3DO4cWD--ax6YJ-VBn1Rz9PxboEr7KcPsDiYMzQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Brent Meeker]

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



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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


Brent


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


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

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Jason Resch]

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

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

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

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

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

Jason

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

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Bruce Kellett]

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

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

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

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

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQgX7dDF200sBwV29m%2B6x3c0ju5MXFE0oNOpnksqxnfbQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

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

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

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

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

cod

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv38V%2BmWfPT-m6ipvpTkWZwMMQMch6i4gh%2Bxc5k9TJq4Kw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Bruce Kellett]

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 7:19 AM John Clark  wrote:

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

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

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQj%2BWC%3D2aizWQH8ROzDKOSSAdSu5A_rGLsCQ1VyT1xS5g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 2:52 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

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

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

*> when exactly is the split,*
>

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


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

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

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

1zp

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3HUG_N1V4Eh5CUg9ga_b7v%2B9yH9FaptkxvZLrXx%2BqoRA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Brent Meeker]

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


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


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


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


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


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


Which is exactly what is observed.

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


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


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


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


Brent


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


nf)




Brent


iyu

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1C2QL1yRn9XpEwyL9ea1dqK8wPwE_CfuxkbLOLsS%2BzaQ%40mail.gmail.com

.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9d83-e864-4023-a8cf-85ec07c0989c%40gmail.com

.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0ym-k%3DvTroJtV4Low0d3oeBL4BMjRYcksP2bR_Cazuxw%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cccbb894-34bb-4905-8b9c-6a6d0e3c5b12%40gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

['scerir' via Everything List]

It seems that, on page 270 of this paper, Feynman said something about Everett 
and his "universal wave-function" 
https://edition-open-sources.org/media/sources/5/Sources5.pdf

s.

__

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

s.

i

 

 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1464856268.1091525.1701018343689%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

['scerir' via Everything List]

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

Brent


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

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

s.

iyu
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1C2QL1yRn9XpEwyL9ea1dqK8wPwE_CfuxkbLOLsS%2BzaQ%40mail.gmail.com
 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1C2QL1yRn9XpEwyL9ea1dqK8wPwE_CfuxkbLOLsS%2BzaQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer.

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9d83-e864-4023-a8cf-85ec07c0989c%40gmail.com
 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9d83-e864-4023-a8cf-85ec07c0989c%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1668238914.1082895.1701009106252%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

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


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

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



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

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

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

nf)





>
> Brent
>
> iyu
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1C2QL1yRn9XpEwyL9ea1dqK8wPwE_CfuxkbLOLsS%2BzaQ%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9d83-e864-4023-a8cf-85ec07c0989c%40gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0ym-k%3DvTroJtV4Low0d3oeBL4BMjRYcksP2bR_Cazuxw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Brent Meeker]

On 11/25/2023 12:12 PM, John Clark wrote:



On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 5:51 PM Brent Meeker  
wrote:




>> And the best response to my challenge that you could come up
with was:
"/The explanation is in print which is classica/l"



/> Can you tell the difference between the above and "The
explanation is classical and is in print." /


Yes. The print is classical but the explanation is not. I also know 
the difference between the cat is in the hat and the hat is in the cat.


> /I never said there were not explanations using quantum concepts
like Hilbert space and the Born rule. /


Therefore you were never able to do what I challenged you to do, which 
was "Using only classical concepts explain to me how and why the 
Quantum Eraser Experiment works."


/> This started with me pointing out, like Bohr, that all science:
experiments, records, results, theories are necessarily in a
classical world. /


NO.  Records of the results of experiments are written down 
classically, but the theories needed to predict those results must be 
quantum mechanical, and a quantum interpretation is needed to 
understand why those theories are so good at making correct predictions.


/> To say that those theories may postulate quantum world does not
invalidate it./


That depends on whatthe pronoun "it" in the aboverefers to.

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

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


Brent


iyu

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1C2QL1yRn9XpEwyL9ea1dqK8wPwE_CfuxkbLOLsS%2BzaQ%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9d83-e864-4023-a8cf-85ec07c0989c%40gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 5:51 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
> >> And the best response to my challenge that you could come up with was:
>> "*The explanation is in print which is classica*l"
>>
>
> * > Can you tell the difference between the above and "The explanation is
> classical and is in print." *
>

Yes. The print is classical but the explanation is not. I also know the
difference between the cat is in the hat and the hat is in the cat.

 > * I never said there were not explanations using quantum concepts like
> Hilbert space and the Born rule. *
>

Therefore you were never able to do what I challenged you to do, which was
"Using only classical concepts explain to me how and why the Quantum Eraser
Experiment works."


> * > This started with me pointing out, like Bohr, that all science:
> experiments, records, results, theories are necessarily in a classical
> world. *
>

NO.  Records of the results of experiments are written down classically,
but the theories needed to predict those results must be quantum
mechanical, and a quantum interpretation is needed to understand why those
theories are so good at making correct predictions.

* > To say that those theories may postulate quantum world does not
> invalidate it.*
>

That depends on what the pronoun "it" in the above refers to.

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

iyu

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1C2QL1yRn9XpEwyL9ea1dqK8wPwE_CfuxkbLOLsS%2BzaQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:23:48 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 7:45 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>> There is plenty of direct evidence that quantum weirdness exists, even 
the father of the Copenhagen Interpretation Niels Bohr admitted that "*Anyone 
who is not shocked by Quantum theory does not understand it *". Something 
must be behind all that strangeness and whatever it is it must be odd, very 
very odd. Yes, many world's idea is ridiculous, but is it ridiculous enough 
to be true? If it's not then something even more ridiculous is. As for the 
Copenhagen interpretation, I don't think it's ridiculous, I think it's 
incoherent, and if you ask 10 adherents what it's saying you'll get 12 
completely different answers, but they all boil down to "*just give up, 
don't even try to figure out what's going on*". But I think one must try.

 

* > I think that's very unfair to Bohr.  His basic observation was that we 
do science in a classical world of necessity.* 


Bohr was a great scientist but I think he was a lousy philosopher.  Bohr 
thought there was a mystical interface between quantum events and conscious 
awareness, some call it the "Heisenberg Cut", but neither Bohr nor 
Heisenberg could explain the mechanism behind this mysterious phenomenon 
nor could they say exactly, or even approximately, where the hell the 
dividing line between the classical world and the quantum world is. By 
contrast Many Worlds has no problem whatsoever explaining the mechanism 
behind the Heisenberg cut or where the dividing line is because the 
Heisenberg cut does not exist and there is no dividing line, everything is 
quantum mechanical including the entire universe.  I think this is the 
reason the Many Worlds interpretation is more popular among cosmologists 
than among scientists in general.


The Heisenberg cut is a weakness with the Copenhagen Interpretation. 
However, all interpretations of QM when chased down their rabbit holes lead 
to nests of problems that fail to close.

LC
 


 > *Only in a classical world can we make measurements and keep records 
that we can agree on.  *


But the Copenhagen adherents can't agree even among themselves what a 
"measurement" is or what a "record" means, but Many Worlds people are in 
agreement, all measurements are a change in a quantum state but a quantum 
change is not necessarily a measurement.   
  

> *when we study the microscopic world we must use quantum mechanics, but 
our instruments must be classical. *


We can pretend our instruments are classical, in our everyday life we can 
pretend that everything is classical, but we've known for nearly a century 
that is just a useful lie we tell ourselves because reality is not 
classical, it is quantum mechanical.   
 

*> You can treat a baseball as a quantum system composed of elementary 
particles; but your measurements on it must still give classical values. *


As I said before, you can live your entire life by pretending that 
classical physics is all there is and in fact billions of people have had 
successful lives doing so, but that doesn't make it true. In theory 
classical measurements can be exact, but quantum measurements cannot be 
even in theory. If we wish to study the fundamental nature of reality we're 
going to need to perform experiments with things when they are in very 
exotic conditions that we will never encounter in everyday life, and when 
we perform these difficult experiments we find the things get weird, very 
very weird, and that demands an explanation. And waving your hands and 
saying there is a Heisenberg cut is not an explanation.


* > Since the development of decoherence theory this boundary can be 
quantified in terms vanishing of cross-terms in a reduced density matrix. *


Forget theory, every time the precision of our quantum *EXPERIMENTS* 
improves the lower limit of this mythical boundary between the classical 
world and the quantum world gets larger, I think it's as large as the 
entire universe.  
 

> *What is left unexplained, in MWI as well as Copenhagen, is the 
instantiation of a random result with probability proportional to the 
diagonal elements of the reduced density matrix.*


If the concept of "probability" is to make any sense and not be paradoxical 
it must be a real number between 0 and 1, and all the probabilities in a 
given situation must add up to exactly 1. Gleason's theorem proved that 
given those restraints, probability can always be expressed by the density 
matrix, that is to say the Born Rule. So the real question is; 
Schrodinger's equation is completely deterministic so why do we need 
probability at all? The Copenhagen people have a range of answers to that 
question, some say Schrodinger's equation needs to be modified by adding a 
random element, but they can't agree on exactly what it should be, others 
say it is improper to even ask that question, but they can't agree among 
themselves exactly why it is improper.  

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 10:26:58 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:

There seems to be a conflation between the multiple worlds of Everett and 
the eternal inflation of a multiverse.

Brent


Max Tegmark thinks there is a high level multiverse of this form involving 
MWI. The problem is that we will never be able to know, and MWI is an 
interpretation that is auxiliary to QM and really not necessary. 

LC
 


On 11/19/2023 4:49 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:


The real problem is that anything involving the multiverse, say some 
quantum field signature from the earliest quantum cosmology, is stretched 
by inflation into a red-shifted spectrum beyond measurability. The 
multiverse is consistent with inflationary cosmology, which is supported by 
data, but information about the multiverse may never be detected. 

LC 

On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 5:58:15 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

*I read an article called The multiverse is unscientific nonsense 
<https://iai.tv/articles/the-multiverse-is-unscientific-nonsense-auid-2668> by 
Jacob 
Barandes, a lecturer in physics at Harvard University, and I wrote a letter 
to professor **Barandes commenting on it. He responded with a very polite 
letter saying he read it and appreciated what I said but didn't have time 
to comment further. This is the letter I sent: *
===


*Hello Professor Barandes *

*I read your article The multiverse is unscientific nonsense with interest 
and I have a few comments:*

*Nobody is claiming that the existence of the multiverse is a 
proven fact, but I think the idea needs to be taken seriously because: *

*1) Unlike Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation, the Many Worlds theory is 
clear about what it's saying. *
*2) It is self consistent and conforms with all known experimental 
results. *
*3) It has no need to speculate about new physics as objective wave 
collapse theories like GRW do.*

*4) It doesn't have to explain what consciousness or a measurement is 
because they have nothing to do with it, all it needs is Schrodinger's 
equation.   * 


*I don't see how you can explain counterfactual quantum reasoning and such 
things as the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester without making use of many 
worlds. Hugh Everett would say that by having a bomb in a universe we are 
not in explode we can tell if a bomb that is in the branch of the 
multiverse that we are in is a dud or is a live fully functional bomb.  You 
say that many worlds needs to account for probability and that's true, but 
then you say many worlds demands that some worlds have “higher 
probabilities than others" but that is incorrect. According to many worlds 
there is one and only one universe for every quantum state that is not 
forbidden by the laws of physics. So when you flip a coin the universe 
splits many more times than twice because there are a vast number, perhaps 
an infinite number, of places where a coin could land, but you are not 
interested in exactly where the coin lands, you're only interested if it 
lands heads or tails. And we've known for centuries how to obtain a useful 
probability between any two points on the continuous bell curve even though 
the continuous curve is made up of an unaccountably infinite number of 
points, all we need to do is perform a simple integration to figure out 
which part of the bell curve we're most likely on. *

*Yes, that's a lot of worlds, but you shouldn't object that the multiverse 
really couldn't be that big unless you are a stout defender of the idea 
that the universe must be finite, because even if many worlds turns out to 
be untrue the universe could still be infinite and an infinity plus an 
infinity is still the an infinity with the same Aleph number. Even if there 
is only one universe if it's infinite then a finite distance away there 
must be a doppelgänger of you because, although there are a huge number of 
quantum states your body could be in, that number is not infinite, but the 
universe is. * 


*And Occam's razor is about an economy of assumptions not an economy of 
results.  As for the "Tower of assumptions" many worlds is supposed to be 
based on, the only assumption that many worlds makes is that Schrodinger's 
equation means what it says, and it says nothing about the wave function 
collapsing. I would maintain that many worlds is bare-bones no-nonsense 
quantum mechanics with none of the silly bells and whistles that other 
theories stick on that do nothing but get rid of those  pesky other worlds 
that keep cropping up that they personally dislike for some reason. And 
since Everett's time other worlds do seem to keep popping up and in 
completely unrelated fields, such as string theory and inflationary 
cosmology. * 


*You also ask what a “rational observer” is and how they ought to behave, 
and place bets on future events, given their self-locating uncertainty. I 
agree with David Hume who said that "ought" cannot be derived from "is", 
b

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Brent Meeker]

On 11/24/2023 2:35 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 1:48 AM John Clark  wrote:

On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 5:36 AM Brent Meeker
 wrote:

//
/> Let's review the bidding John.  I said the classical world
was necessary to science/


And if that's all you had said we wouldn't be having an argument,
but you insisted that classical concepts were also sufficient to
do science. You even claimed that an "explanation is in print"
that explains why the Quantum Eraser Experiment does what it does
and doesn't do what it doesn't do that, as my challenge specified,
uses only classical concepts. But you don't say where I can find
this revolutionary article that would certainly change physics
forever if it actually existed.

/> You attempted to counter this by challenging me to explain
the quantum eraser experiment  without quantum mechanics/


You seem to have difficulty remembering things I have said and yet
you find it very easy to remember things that I did *NOT* say,
therefore I will provide an exact quote of the challenge I gave to
you:

 "Using only *classical concepts* explain to me how and why the
Quantum Eraser Experiment works."

And I am still waiting for that explanationfrom you. In fact for
about a century the entire world has been trying to find an
explanation for quantum weirdness using only intuitive classical
physics, and they have failed spectacularly.

> ...a complete non-sequitur.


What is a complete non-sequitur?

/> I replied that our quantum mechanical explanations are
written out in classically behaving ink. I never said
explanations must be in classical terms,/


Again I will use exact quotes as I wish you had.My challenge to
you was:

"Using only classical concepts explain to me how and why the
Quantum Eraser Experiment works."

And the best response to my challenge that you could come up with was:
"/The explanation is in print which is classica/l"



Can you tell the difference between the above and "The explanation is 
classical and is in print."  You were just trying to move the goal 
post.  I never said there were not explanations using quantum concepts 
like Hilbert space and the Born rule.  This started with me pointing 
out, like Bohr, that all science: experiments, records, results, 
theories are necessarily in a classical world.  To say that those 
theories may postulate quantum world does not invalidate it.


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/a6483a7d-c52d-4768-b164-a2fe1a74c30d%40gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 1:48 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 5:36 AM Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
> * > Let's review the bidding John.  I said the classical world was
>> necessary to science*
>>
>
> And if that's all you had said we wouldn't be having an argument, but you
> insisted that classical concepts were also sufficient to do science. You
> even claimed that an "explanation is in print" that explains why the
> Quantum Eraser Experiment does what it does and doesn't do what it doesn't
> do that, as my challenge specified, uses only classical concepts. But you
> don't say where I can find this revolutionary article that would certainly
> change physics forever if it actually existed.
>
> *> You attempted to counter this by challenging me to explain the quantum
>> eraser experiment  without quantum mechanics*
>>
>
> You seem to have difficulty remembering things I have said and yet you
> find it very easy to remember things that I did *NOT* say, therefore I
> will provide an exact quote of the challenge I gave to you:
>
>  "Using only *classical concepts* explain to me how and why the Quantum
> Eraser Experiment works."
>
> And I am still waiting for that explanation from you. In fact for about a
> century the entire world has been trying to find an explanation for quantum
> weirdness using only intuitive classical physics, and they have failed
> spectacularly.
>
>
>
>> > ...a complete non-sequitur.
>>
>
> What is a  complete non-sequitur?
>
>
>
>> * > I replied that our quantum mechanical explanations are written out in
>> classically behaving ink.  I never said explanations must be in classical
>> terms,*
>>
>
> Again I will use exact quotes as I wish you had.  My challenge to you was:
>
> "Using only classical concepts explain to me how and why the Quantum
> Eraser Experiment works."
>
> And the best response to my challenge that you could come up with was:
>
> "*The explanation is in print which is classica*l"
>
> Then in your most recent post you **claimed** you had said:
>
> "*the explanation IF in print and print is classical.*"
>
> You added an "*if*" that your original quote did not have, and that "*if*"
> is of gargantuan size!* If *in the mathematical literature a correct
> proof that only a finite number of prime numbers exists, or that 2+2 = 5,
> *then* that proof is printed using ink that can be thought of as behaving
> classically because the quantum mechanical nature of the ink does not
> interfere with the information it conveys. The preceding sentence is
> perfectly true, it is also perfectly silly.
>
> *>  I said they must be classically embodied.*
>
>
> I specifically asked for "classical *concepts*" that explain experimental
> results, but even if I had not specifically included the word "*concepts*
> " I would have found it very difficult to believe you really thought I
> was interested in ink and not in ideas. I think you were pretending to
> misunderstand what I was asking you to do because you couldn't find any
> other way to meet my challenge. But I could be wrong, if so do you also
> believe that professors of English literature are only interested in the
> sequence of ASCII characters that Shakespeare outputted when writing his
> plays and not the ideas the words made up of those ASCII characters represent?
>
>


Perhaps this account of quantum eraser experiments by Sean Carroll is an
appropriate classical description of a quantum process?

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2019/09/21/the-notorious-delayed-choice-quantum-eraser/

Or you can look at the account of the classical quantum eraser/delayed
choice experiment here:

arXiv:1206.6578.pdf

The descriptions of these experiments are given in purely classical terms.

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/CAFxXSLRJS%2BFiw%3DLHkfp6fgsbR3_0gbF27Gnst4aWqe0NSsVg2Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 5:36 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:

* > Let's review the bidding John.  I said the classical world was
> necessary to science*
>

And if that's all you had said we wouldn't be having an argument, but you
insisted that classical concepts were also sufficient to do science. You
even claimed that an "explanation is in print" that explains why the
Quantum Eraser Experiment does what it does and doesn't do what it doesn't
do that, as my challenge specified, uses only classical concepts. But you
don't say where I can find this revolutionary article that would certainly
change physics forever if it actually existed.

*> You attempted to counter this by challenging me to explain the quantum
> eraser experiment  without quantum mechanics*
>

You seem to have difficulty remembering things I have said and yet you find
it very easy to remember things that I did *NOT* say, therefore I will
provide an exact quote of the challenge I gave to you:

 "Using only *classical concepts* explain to me how and why the Quantum
Eraser Experiment works."

And I am still waiting for that explanation from you. In fact for about a
century the entire world has been trying to find an explanation for quantum
weirdness using only intuitive classical physics, and they have failed
spectacularly.



> > ...a complete non-sequitur.
>

What is a  complete non-sequitur?



> * > I replied that our quantum mechanical explanations are written out in
> classically behaving ink.  I never said explanations must be in classical
> terms,*
>

Again I will use exact quotes as I wish you had.  My challenge to you was:

"Using only classical concepts explain to me how and why the Quantum Eraser
Experiment works."

And the best response to my challenge that you could come up with was:

"*The explanation is in print which is classica*l"

Then in your most recent post you **claimed** you had said:

"*the explanation IF in print and print is classical.*"

You added an "*if*" that your original quote did not have, and that "*if*"
is of gargantuan size!* If *in the mathematical literature a correct proof
that only a finite number of prime numbers exists, or that 2+2 = 5, *then*
that proof is printed using ink that can be thought of as behaving
classically because the quantum mechanical nature of the ink does not
interfere with the information it conveys. The preceding sentence is
perfectly true, it is also perfectly silly.

*>  I said they must be classically embodied.*


I specifically asked for "classical *concepts*" that explain experimental
results, but even if I had not specifically included the word "*concepts* " I
would have found it very difficult to believe you really thought I was
interested in ink and not in ideas. I think you were pretending to
misunderstand what I was asking you to do because you couldn't find any
other way to meet my challenge. But I could be wrong, if so do you also
believe that professors of English literature are only interested in the
sequence of ASCII characters that Shakespeare outputted when writing his
plays and not the ideas the words made up of those ASCII characters
represent?


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

spw


>

-- 
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/CAJPayv1fCKQELwha44Cmx-%2B5Hvu5F4_TwfNdkxUT%2B6fsX0qEOw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Brent Meeker]

On 11/24/2023 2:26 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:


[John] Using only classical concepts explain to me how and why the 
Quantum Eraser Experiment works.


[Brent] The explanation is in print which is classical.
[John] If you're right and an explanation of how and why the Quantum 
Eraser Experiment worksthat only uses classical concepts is in print 
then they must've used invisible ink to print it because I've never 
seen it and I don't know anybody who has. And I've looked!


Let's review the bidding John.  I said the classical world was necessary 
to science because we need to write down results and theories that we 
can share.  We can't deal in superpositions of different results.  You 
attempted to counter this by challenging me to explain the quantum 
eraser experiment  without quantum mechanics...a complete non-sequitur.  
I replied that our quantum mechanical explanations are written out in 
classically behaving ink.  I never said explanations must be in 
classical terms,  I said they must be classically embodied.


Brent



https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.03137Ruth Kastner wrote an interesting 
paper about Quantum Erasure and Delayed Choice /

/

--
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/2063434390.902526.1700821592628%40mail1.libero.it 
.


--
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/10eaddaa-5374-4ca8-afda-621e0fe34715%40gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

['scerir' via Everything List]

[John] Using only classical concepts explain to me how and why the Quantum 
Eraser Experiment works.

[Brent] The explanation is in print which is classical.
 
[John] If you're right and an explanation of how and why the Quantum Eraser 
Experiment works that only uses classical concepts is in print then they 
must've used invisible ink to print it because I've never seen it and I don't 
know anybody who has. And I've looked! 
 
https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.03137 Ruth Kastner wrote an interesting paper about 
Quantum Erasure and Delayed Choice

 

-- 
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/2063434390.902526.1700821592628%40mail1.libero.it.