AG, The key difference is that in MWI, all possible settings and outcomes actually happen in different branches. Nothing selects just one in advance.
So yes, everything evolves deterministically, including the experimenters, but there's no global constraint forcing a single outcome to match hidden variables. In superdeterminism, only one setting and one outcome ever happen, and they're pre-correlated to fake the quantum violation. MWI doesn't need that. It just lets every allowed outcome unfold, no conspiracy required. Quentin All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) Le mar. 8 juil. 2025, 19:21, Alan Grayson <agrayson2...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > On Saturday, July 5, 2025 at 10:32:23 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > AG, > > You can’t write the universal wavefunction in full detail because it’s the > total quantum state of the entire universe. > > In principle, it’s a giant superposition of all possible configurations > evolving deterministically. > > Just because we can’t write it out explicitly doesn’t mean it’s not part > of the formalism. Even for a modest number of entangled particles, the > wavefunction is too big to display, but it still has a precise mathematical > definition. > > Quentin > > > *If all events are determined in advance by the UWF, this implies that the > settings of both experimenters in Bell experiments are also predetermined. > Isn't the condition for the validity of Bell experiments is that the > settings are random? How is this different from superdeterminism? AG * > > > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy > Batty/Rutger Hauer) > Le sam. 5 juil. 2025, 18:09, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > On Friday, July 4, 2025 at 6:52:05 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > AG, > > That’s exactly the point: the universal wavefunction contains all possible > paths you might take—left, right, or none. > > It doesn’t “know” in advance which one you will experience; it simply > encodes every alternative in superposition. > > That’s why it’s called Many Worlds. Nothing is singled out until > decoherence makes the branches effectively independent. There will be as > many AG as physically possible (means possible according to the > wavefunction) > > Quentin > > > Can you write the Universal WF? Much is claimed about it, but I've never > seen it. AG > > > > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy > Batty/Rutger Hauer) > > Le ven. 4 juil. 2025, 14:09, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > On Friday, July 4, 2025 at 5:48:06 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > AG, > > In MWI, whether you call it “splitting” or “differentiation” doesn’t > really change anything essential. The universal wavefunction by definition > contains all possible branches in superposition. > > What we call “worlds” are just components becoming effectively independent > via decoherence. Nothing extra gets created, everything is always in the > wavefunction. > > It’s the same formalism either way; the difference is just in how you > choose to describe it. > > Quentin > > > So the Universal WF contains information concerning which turn I will make > at an intersection before I make the turn? Is this your claim what the MWI > contains? AG > > > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy > Batty/Rutger Hauer) > Le ven. 4 juil. 2025, 12:52, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > On Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 7:38:03 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 7/3/2025 2:51 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > I definitely understand the mathematics and logic that for light speed to > be frame invariant, length contraction and time dilation must occur. But I > don't see any physical model that allows that to occur, and I don't think > Relativity provides that model. AG > > > You seem to have a hang up about "models". What exactly are you asking > for? A mechanical model of springs and masses like Faraday contrived for > EM waves? Lorentz already derived his contraction by considering atoms as > little particles held in place by EM forces? Isn't that "model" enough for > you? > > Brent > > > I'm not sure exactly what I am seeking, but logic alone leaves much to be > desired in the context of Relativity. Lorentz's model is rarely, if ever, > mentioned today in any discussion of Relativity, presumably because it's > wrong, or doesn't adequately provide an explanation for length contraction, > or possibly because logic is seen as sufficient to explain relativistic > phenomena (when it does not IMO). As for Quentin's explanation of how many > worlds come into being, he says they don't, but are always there, as if > those I am supposed to think come into being at some intersection with its > numerous different turns possible, were always implicit in the Universal > WF, which perfectly knows the future? Quentin thinks this is a reasonable > interpretation of the MWI, when IMO it's just untestable imagination. > What's your opinion of this latest twist on the MWI, which is supposed to > appeal to sober individuals? AG > > -- > 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 visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/eab01bb4-66f7-4fb4-8c75-9515696b1cc5n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/eab01bb4-66f7-4fb4-8c75-9515696b1cc5n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kArr_XbGjd9rQXGDX0fiAzLsnUrbsayHYAYH7ofRkuG%2BfA%40mail.gmail.com.
