On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. >> >> > Now this is the most blatant inconsistency I have seen from you thus > far. >
If that is true then what you have seen from me has been very consistent indeed. > You can see the John Clarks duplicated by the wave function experience a > certain definite result > Yes, the 2 slit experiment produces a rock solid result, quantum mechanics could only predict probabilities but the experiment produces a definite result, it says the photon hit right at that point with 100% certainty. > either the photon took the left slit or the right slit > This is a bit of a tangent and it's more difficult to do but the 2 slit experiment can be set up in such a way that you can tell which slit the photon went through, but if you do that then the photons will not produce a interference pattern on the film. In my example I assumed the usual 2 slit setup where you don't know which slit the photon went through and many photons will produce a interference pattern on the film and quantum mechanics can only give a probability on where a single photon is likely to hit the photographic plate. There are other ways to do the setup that can be instructive. Do the two-slit experiment but instead of using film to stop the photon after it pass the slits, let it head out into infinite space. If Many Worlds is correct then the entire universe splits into 2 when the photon hit's the 2 slits, and never recombines. There is nothing special about you the observer, you split just like everything else, you know that the photon went through one and only one slit, but of course you have no way of knowing which one. This is like Bruno's experiment, doing the 2 slit experiment without film produces no result. Now let's do the more usual two-split experiment and put the film back in. The universe splits just as it did before when it passed the two slits, but when the photon hits the film and it no longer exists in either universe then the 2 are identical and the universes fuse back together again. Looking back we find evidence that the photon (or electron) went through slit X only and evidence it went through slit Y only and this causes an interference pattern. Again there is nothing special about an observer in this, the same thing would happen if nobody looked at the film, or even if you used a brick wall instead of film, because the important thing is not that the photon makes a record (whatever that is) but simply that it is destroyed. Mind has nothing to do with any of this so I don't need to explain it, or measurement, or record, or observation, or consciousness. That is a very very big advantage! The key point is that universes split when they become different and merge when they become the same, and measurement doesn't enter into it. > yet you are blind to the definite result of self localization after a > single duplication. Why is that? > Bruno said that "you" know that when the button is pushed "you" will see one city and one city only, Bruno also said that no theory can predict if the city will be W or M that "you" will see. Fine, but my question was after the experiment was over what was the definite result, was it W or M that "you" saw? I asked Bruno to do the equivalent of developing the photographic plate and report what was seen, W or M. But Bruno couldn't tell me the outcome and neither could anybody else. > > How many points (where the photon struck) will any of the infinite John > Clarks see once the photographic plate is developed? > One. >Do you agree each of them sees only one outcome? > Yes. Does Jason Resch agree that the number of Washingtons that John Clark will see after John Clark pushes that button is one? Does Jason Resch agree that the number of Moscows that John Clark will see after John Clark pushes that button is one? Does Jason Resch know who the hell the single unique being called "you" is supposed to be after the button is pushed in Bruno's thought experiment? Does Jason Resch know which one and only one city "you" will see after the button is pushed? John Clark would very much like to be informed about the answer to the last two questions because Bruno clearly doesn't know. Does Jason Resch? 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.
