On 8/25/2025 12:04 AM, smitra wrote:
But then one is defining "this universe" post hoc after the photon
lands on some point on the screen. One can do that, but this means
that there are two possibilities that really exist. Whether that's
considered to be in a single universe or two universes is just
semantics. There are two classes of paths for the photon, one class is
the set of paths through one slit, the other are the paths through the
other slit.
Given that's the case, we can then do another measurement where we
simply measure through which slit the photon goes. We then don't
bother to let the photon move through toward the screen anymore, we
just detect the outcome of measuring whether the photon after moving
past either slits ends up being detected immediately after the left or
the right slit.
If I then perform one such measurement, and I decide to go on vacation
destination X if the photon is detected behind the left slit and I go
to vacation destination Y if the result is the right slit, and I end
up going to X, the question is if there exists a parallel world where
I go to Y.
The question for people who would say that only one world where I go
to X exists, is then to explain why both possibilities for the photon
going to the left or right slit objectively exists when we detect the
photon only at the screen, but only one possibility exists when we
detect the photon directly after passing the slits.
The answer is, Don't confound possibility with reality. Possibilities
"objectively exist" doesn't mean the corresponding realities exist.
When you measure at one slit there is a different reality than when
measuring at the screen.
Brent
Saibal
On 18-08-2025 21:56, Brent Meeker wrote:
Whatever goes thru the other slit to create the cancellation is doing
it in the same universe; and incidentally it also increases the
incidence at other points. So I don't see that it implies a parallel
universe.
Brent
On 8/17/2025 10:31 AM, smitra wrote:
See here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bux0SjaUCY0&t=885s
Of course, you can never get to 100% rigorous proof in physics like
in mathematics. You can never rule out waking up tomorrow in some
alien world and aliens telling you that your life here on Earth was
a simulation and that everything you thought you knew about the laws
of physics is false.
The nice thing about the argument by Deutsch is that it doesn't
depend on QM being correct, it is based on interpreting the
interference experiment. So, QM could be wrong, or it could be that
some of the claims of the MWI proponents are wrong, and yet this
argument by Deutsch will still stand.
Saibal
--
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/a1de5682-0789-4d6d-8794-28d553b68979%40gmail.com
[1].
Links:
------
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a1de5682-0789-4d6d-8794-28d553b68979%40gmail.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/8ad48823-1135-483b-90fe-b9249c3257c1%40gmail.com.
