On 10 Jan 2013, at 20:37, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
It's not working just fine if *repeated* occurence of such
*extremelly low probability* occurs.
I recall that you are the one who insisted for fixing a final world/
date in which we evaluate the theories (MWI, ~MWI), without any
forward shots. I agree that a sequence of little miracles can seem
more miraculous than one big miracle. But the seeming can be deceiving/
misleading, and that is why we resume the discussion in term of
probabilities.
Then the problem is that in term of probabilities, the event of being
selected in a big concrete set (MWI) is equivalent with the event of
being selected concretely in a big set of mathematical possibilities
(collapsing wave).
The probability is just a very tiny one, so strongly tiny that the
witnesses in the final world will get mad, I think.
If you say it's fine, then you're simply saying probability is
meaningless.
The problem is that the witnesses in the final world have lived a
stochastic miracle. I am sensible that it seems a bit less miraculous
with MWI than with collapse, but this is just because the collapse
does not make sense to me right at the start. If it did, I would no
more see why the event would be more miraculous than without collapse,
as the selection in both case appears with the same probabilities.
A non null probability event can happen, whatever the probabilities
come from.
I wonder what measurement you'll accept to falsify a theory ?
But here, due to the fact that we put ourselves at the place of people
living a stochastic miracle, we have to admit that their experiences,
challenge QM, that is both QM-MWI and QM-collapse. Starting from that,
the point consists in defending if it is less miraculous with MWI or
with ~MWI, and your point is not convincing in that respect, for the
witness, even if, as we have agreed I think, it can be for the
experimenter (but not completely: he might get a second thought and
put the gun in the dress thinking he might have just been incredibly
lucky: no one get a proof 'course).
And it seems to me that this is made more obvious if you realize that
in the normal worlds of the experimenter, she is the only one 'guy on
the planet surviving, all the time, the super-gun shot. Like if both
QM-MWI and QM-collapse continues to work perfectly, except when apply
to her, where they are both statistically disconfirmed.
Your argument is not valid on "Tegmark's point", but it might be
developed into an argument for MWI, following another line than
probability. I would agree that the infinite case, where on a planet
some family survives the QS since many generation and continue to do
so, would make MWI more plausible, as in the limit the probability is
zero (but of course we are never at that limit). Here your point that,
MWI justifies, at least, the necessary existence of such "impossible"
event might make sense. But you have to work out that more, imo.
Hmm... They (the people on that planet) might just believe in the
collapse by "enough" consciousness, so that only that family got the
consciousness enough to prevent the collapse on the "bang", I dunno, I
try hard to find sense in your intuition.
Bruno
Regardsn
Quentin
2013/1/10 meekerdb <[email protected]>
You can as well say collapse is saved because P=10^-6 > 0 and so
probability calculus is working just fine. Collapse and MWI use the
same probability calculus.
Brent
On 1/10/2013 10:42 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Yes but in QM + collapse it is a potentiality which happen
according to the probability in mwi it is a proportion, it always
happen. If the event always happen your prior probability calculus
is severly broken. Mwi is saved because in mwi probability are not
about happening but are proportions in qm+collapse it is about
happening.
Quentin
Le 10 janv. 2013 19:34, "meekerdb" <[email protected]> a écrit :
On 1/10/2013 7:37 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
No, I say it can no more happen in collapse theory without *a very
good* explanation principle. I'm sorry but if the theory predict
it happens with a 1/10⁹ probability of occurence and every time
you test it, it happens... I'd say your prior probability calculus
is screwed, so without a *good* explanation, your theory can be
said to be falsified. As I said, the *good* explanation with MWI
is that *it does* happen.
But MWI also predicts P=10^-6.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
[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
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
[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
.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2637/6023 - Release Date:
01/10/13
--
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
.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
--
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.
