On 27 Dec 2013, at 19:52, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I do not know if it matters but quantum mechanics is based on the
Dirac equation, not Shrodinger's equation
This indeed change nothing. I agree with Jason. QM without collapse is
"many-world".
If there is no collapse, QM (classical or relativistic) entails that
if I decide if I go to the North or to the South for Holiday and base
my choice on he usual spin superposition of some electron, I (3-1
view) end up being superposed in both South and North, and the unicity
of my experience can be considered as equivalent with the
computationalist first person indeterminacy. With comp used here, the
physical universe is not duplicated, as it simply does not exist in
any primitive way, so it can be seen as a differentiation of the
consciousness flux in arithmetic.
With EPR, or better Bell's theorem indeed, it is very hard to keep a
local physical reality "unique" in QM. The collapse does not make any
sense. But there is no need to be realist on many "world", as there is
no world at all, only computations already defined in a tiny part of
the arithmetical reality. That tiny part of arithmetic is quite small
compared to the whole arithmetical truth, but still something very big
compared to a unique local physical cosmos.
Bruno
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]>
wrote:
Jason,
Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but
you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are
saying what you are saying.
As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct
experience
Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist,
to the exclusion of all others? If so, please explain how this is
self-evident.
whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of
quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience,
I agree with this. But then why isn't it also "outlandish" to
presume past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we
are not in them? It seems to be a needless addition to the theory
(just like wave function collapse), to keep our concept of what is
real, limited to that which we are aware of from our particular
vantage point.
To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the
equations of quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for
measurements, they suppose that those other possibilities simply
disappear, because we (from our vantage point in one branch) did not
experience those other vantage points in other branches. Hence they
presume only one is reified, to the exclusion of all others. This
"us-centered" thinking is how I see presentism. It says that only
one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others.
or in quantum theory = the actual equations.
If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual
equations (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to
many-worlds. It is only by added additional postulates (such as
collapse) that you can hope to restrict quantum mechanics to a
single world. All attempts at this which I have seen seem ad hoc and
completely unnecessary.
Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest
long ago
You need to clarify here. Decoherence is used by some to say when
collapse happens (without needing observers). Hence, collapse is
still treated as a real phenomenon (just one not triggered by
observation). Others, use decoherence in the context of many-worlds
to justify the "appearance of collapse", while maintaining that the
wave function never collapses.
If you are saying collapse doesn't happen or is not real, then that
is de facto "many-worlds".
but the self-evident experience
As I said a few posts ago, you cannot use your experience to rule
out that more than one present exists, and therefore you cannot use
your experience to rule out that all points in time exist.
of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory.
The exclusive existence of a unique present contradicts special
relativity.
Please explain why "Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds,
you must also reject special relativity's edict that nothing can
travel faster than light, (or as you and I say, that everything
travels at the speed of light)"
I'm not familiar with this result
I am referring to Bell's theorem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem
explained well here:
http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm
It is a statistical proof that no system of local hidden variables
can explain the statistics of experimentally observed quantum
measurements. Without local hidden variables, there remain two
possible explanations:
1. measuring one entangled particle instantly and immediately
effects the state of the other particle
2. when the state of the particle is measured, there is not one
definite outcome: multiple outcomes result from the measurement
and something is clearly wrong with it.
You are welcome to try to find a flaw in it, but no one has in the
many decades since its publication.
Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of
all time,
It is only QM, without wave function collapse.
Above you said wave function collapse was ridiculous. So if if it
ridiculous and you get rid of it, you are back to many-worlds.
Which is less ridiculous?
and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was
proposed.
Unfortunately it was, but despite that it re-emerged and has been
ever growing in popularity. Feynman, Gell-man, Steve Weinberg,
Stephen Hawking, Erwin Shrodinger, etc. all came to accept it.
If you reject many-worlds, you must give up: locality, causality,
determinism, special relativity, time-symmetry, time-reversibility,
linearity in QM, and realism. Further, you are unable to explain
the operation of quantum computers.
Do you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that
every quantum event that ever occurred in the history of the
universe spawns an entire new universe of all its possible outcomes
and every event in every one of those new universes does the same.
Not quite. It implies that the properties of particles can be multi-
valued, and when such a particle interacts with another the result
can be that the other particle too, acquires multi-valued properties
as a result of the interaction.
A slightly more comprehensible way of looking at this is merely that
all possibilities already exist out there, and when we learn new
information it causes our consciousness to differentiate. See: http://www.weidai.com/qm-interpretation.txt
or Russel Standish's book http://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html
(available as a free e-book).
This immediately exponentially escalates in the first few minutes of
the universe into uncountable new universes and has been expanding
exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion years! Just try to
calculate the number of new universe that now exist.
Should we similarly use the vast number of stars to rule out the
idea that stars are like our sun, only very far away? After all, it
means there is an absolutely HUGE number of solar systems and
planetary systems out there, which is simply TOO BIG for anyone to
contemplate. Things would be so much simpler if we just kept the
idea that stars are holes in the floor of heaven.
It's larger than the largest number that could ever be imagined or
even written down. There is not enough paper in the universe, or
enough computer memory in the entire universe to even express a
number this large! Doesn't anyone ever use common sense and think
through these things to see how stupid they are? And it violates all
sorts of conservations since energy eg. is multiplied exponentially
beyond counting.
Energy is conserved in each branch, which is all our conservation
laws were designed to handle.
Geeez, it would be impossible to come up with something dumber,
especially when it is completely clear that decoherence theory
falsifies it conclusively.
I think you are mistaken on this.
Jason
Edgar
On Friday, December 27, 2013 11:37:22 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]>
wrote:
Richard, and Bruno,
I agree with Richard here if that is actually what Bruno is doing.
Attributing wavefunction collapse to human observation was certainly
one of the most moronic 'theories' supposedly intelligent scientists
have ever come up with. It's right up there with block time,
That's funny, I've always lumped together "presentist" theories of
time with wave function collapse, since they both have the same
motivation and make the same error: they explain away why we are
aware of only one world, or one point in time, when there is no
reason to add these additional suppositions, since the theory itself
tells us why we are unaware of other times and other branches of the
wave function.
"Nor can I ever sufficiently admire Copernicus and his followers.
They have through sheer force of intellect, done such violence to
their own senses, as to prefer what reason told them over what
sensible experience plainly showed them." -- Galileo
and many worlds nonsense.
Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you must also reject
special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster than
light, (or as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of
light). So what are you giving up: single outcomes of measurements
or no faster-than-light influences?
Surely Bruno can't be basing reality on human experience? After all
reality worked just fine for multiple billions of years before humans.
The UDA doesn't base reality on experience, it bases reality on
relations between numbers. All we see emerges from this: including
conscious experience and appearances of physical realities.
Jason
On Friday, December 27, 2013 10:34:57 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
Bruno,
I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or
whatever) of humans
strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human
consciousness.
Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this list.
Richard
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
<blockquote style="mar
...
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
