On 02 Jan 2014, at 22:06, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>> The wave function says everything there is to be said about how
something is right now.
>> The wave function says nothing about where the electron is right
now, the square of the wave function (I'm not being pedantic the
distinction is important) does tell you something but not enough, it
can only give you probable locations of the electron but it could be
anywhere.
> Up above, you were saying MWI implies a single definite result.
Forget MWI forget theory forget interpretations, whenever you
perform a experiment with photons you always get a single definite
result, and the photon always leaves a specific clearcut dot on the
photographic plate and never a grey smudge.
> (which it does in the third person perspective), but here you are
using the uncertainty in the first person perspective.
Please, don't start with the 1p/ 3p shit, I hear enough of that from
Bruno.
As many pointed out, Everett's theory uses this and that point is
capital to understand comp generalization of it.
You have not answered my last posts. I don't see how you can make
sense of Everett without the 1p/3p distinction, still less
computationalism, indeed.
Bruno
> You should stick to one or the other, or at least be explicit
when you switch between them.
And you are using MWI and "the wave function" as if they were
interchangeable, they are not. If a electron hits a photographic
plate and you see a dot on the plate right there then you know which
branch in the multiverse you're in, the branch where the electron
hit right there. But you still don't know what the probability
distribution was so you don't know what the wave function squared
was. And even if you did know the function squared you still
wouldn't know what the wave function itself was because it contains
imaginary numbers and so when squared 2 very different wave
functions can yield identical probability distributions.
> There are other reasons to prefer it besides it's answer to the
measurement problem without magical observers, including:
- Fewer assumptions
Fewer assumptions but more universes. Which are more expensive? I
think assumptions are probably more expensive so MWI is more
economical, but I could be wrong.
> Explains how quantum computers work
Other interpretations could do that too but I think Many Worlds does
it in a way that is simpler for humans to understand. That's why I
think if quantum computers ever become common Many Worlds will
become the standard interpretation, programing a quantum computer
would just be too complicated if you thought about it in other ways.
> Fully mathematical theory (no fuzziness, or loose definitions)
I agree.
>No faster-than-light influences
If that were true (and if MWI were realistic, and it is) then from
experiment we'd know for certain that MWI is dead wrong, we can
never know for certain that a theory is right but we can know for
certain that it's wrong. But it isn't true.
John K Clark
--
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.
