On Sunday, September 7, 2025 at 4:41:14 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Aug 30, 2025 at 6:11 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: *> Supposedly, S's equation justifies the claim that every outcome is realized in its some world, but in the case of a single polarized photon, the equation seems out-to-lunch, that is, missing-in-action* *Schrodinger's equation says that regardless of what angle you set your polarizer at, there is always a 50% chance you will observe a previously unmeasured photon make it through that polarizer and a 50% chance you will not. And Many Worlds explains how in the world this strange but true fact can possibly be true by saying the unmeasured photon is NOT in one and only one polarization angle but in every conceivable angle, and there is a polarizer for every conceivable rotational setting, and there are 2 Alan Graysons for every polarizer, one Alan Grayson observes the photon passing through the polarizer and the other Alan Grayson observes the photon being absorbed by the polarizer. This is because the photon, the polarizer and Alan Grayson must all obey the laws of quantum mechanics. * *I thought you wrote that an unmeasured photon will pass through any polarizer, set at any angle, and will pass 100% through another polarizer with the same orientation, and never pass through a polarizer rotated 90 degrees from the first. Is this what you claimed? As for S's equation, I don't see it predicting anything in this situation. You've just stated an empirical fact, not what S's equation predicts. In this case it predicts nothing, and is irrelevant to the central claim of the MWI. AG * *I believe the reason Many Worlds is not as universally accepted as Kepler's laws of planetary motion has nothing to do with physics, it has to do with human psychology.* *Kepler's laws make verifiable predictions, unlike MWI. In the polarizer experiment, there's just too many unverifiable worlds being created. And Yes, this is a value judgement which I am allowed to make, even though the universe isn't structured to suit my fancy. Same situation at a T-intersection; too many worlds posited in the MWI. The proliferation of worlds is orders worse than **metastasizing cancer. So I refuse to accept what I consider as nonsense. Relativity, e.g., makes apparent predictions which seem ridiculous. but they are the logical consequences of a few axioms. In polarizer experiment, there is no model I am aware of, that makes the prediction you claim. AG * *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* ndp -- 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/ed1631da-54d9-41fe-9565-d9ff87fae469n%40googlegroups.com.
