On 29 Nov 2012, at 19:42, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 meekerdb <[email protected]> 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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
