On 29 Nov 2012, at 19:42, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Bruno (and most people on this "Everything" list) think that the photon hits in many different places, but these events happen in different 'worlds' per Hugh Everett's interpretation of QM.

Yes, if Everett is correct then the photon hit every point on that photographic plate, but for every point on the plate there is also a John Clark who, after developing the plate, sees that the photon hit that particular point right there and no other point. Thus the 2 slit experiment produces a result, it may seem a odd result to human beings but it is a definite result to every one of the infinite number of John Clarks, and to any other observer who happens to be living in that same world. And that makes it profoundly different from Bruno's experiment.

In Bruno's thought experiment he predicts that the outcome when the experiment is all over will be W or M but not both,

You must add here, "from the 1-person pov of the subject.



however even after the experiment is all over when he does the equivalent of developing the photographic plate not one of the infinite number of Brunos in a infinite number of worlds can say if the final result was W or M.

I say the contrary.



Bruno tries to get out of this mess by saying its a statistical matter, you perform the experiment lots of times and count up all the Washingtons and Moscows and then he claims his theory will have been proven to have made the correct probability prediction; but how do you do the counting? Bruno says the the result will be W or M but not both but before during or even after the experiment he still can't say if the outcome was W or M, and probability studies can't be done if there is no data.

> The point of Bruno's argument is to show how this kind of QM could be realized by a computation that computes everything computable

But afterwards neither quantum mechanics nor computation is needed to know where the photon hit that photographic plate, you just develop it and see. The trouble with Bruno's experiment is that unlike the 2 slits one this experiment has no outcome,

The contrary. You still miss the 1/3 distinction.

Bruno



and a experiment that produces no results isn't much of a experiment.

  John K Clark



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to