On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 8:08:12 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 04 Sep 2016, at 20:27, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > Bruno, thank you for a detailed response. Most of it is above my pay > grade, but I will check some of your links and see what I can make of them. > > > OK. > > > > As for the MWI, I have a simple approach. If I went to LV and played a > slot machine for a single trial or outcome, and someone asked me what > happened to the other thousands of outcomes I didn't get, I'd think that > would be a crazy question. > > > I mainly agree, because there is no unanimity on which counterfactual or > conditional non standard logic to use. >
*Isn't it really much simpler? Just because something *could* exist, like those thousands of other outcomes of the slot machine, doesn't mean they *must* exist. The MWI insists all outcomes MUST exist. I see no necessity for that. AG * > But that's the question some physicists ask when they are confronted with > the non-linearity of collapse in the Copenhagen Interpretation. > > > I tend to disagree here. The quantum situation is different because with > quantum mechanics, different outcomes can interfere and thus have some > physical underpinning which is hard to avoid, especially without assuming > the collapse of the wave. > *How can you disagree? Many prominent physicists -- Greene, Deutsch, Carroll -- when confronted with the non-linearity of collapse, believe the MWI avoids or solves this problem. AG* > > Accepting non linearity > > > There are work by Steinberg and Plaga which shows that if the QM wave is > slightly non linear, then we get the WW with a revenge: interactions > becomes possible in between terms of the wave. This makes wrong special > relativity, but also thermodynamics, etc. > *The wf before measurement is linear insofar as it satisfies a linear DE, and relativity is well tested. So I don't see any issue here. AG * > > So I guess you mean that there is a (non linear) collapse, and that, > strictly speaking the SWR is false. > SWR = ? *Why does a non-linear collapse falsify SR? AG* > You introduce a duality between observer and observed, or between macro > and micro-physics. And, you assume non-mechanism in cognitive science. > H*ow can we test our models without the duality of observer and observed? You demand the impossible. What "non mechanism" have I assumed? QM just gives us probabilities. It's not a causal theory. AG* > That is lot of things for which we don't have evidence. Cosmologists > applies QM on very big object, like black holes, if not the entire > universe, and people trying to justify a physical collapse get a lot of > problem, like non-locality, to cite the one Einstein disliked the most, and > I share a bit that opinion. > > > > > > and actual time irreversibility (not FAPP) is an easier concept to accept > than the real or fictional other worlds necessary to support the MWI. > > > Well, with mechanism, in all case (with or without QM) we get the many > histories/dreams/computations, and they exist like natural numbers. We > don't have to take the "worlds" as primitive ontological reality. I tend to > not really believe in *any* world. Those belongs to the imagination of the > relative universal numbers, whose proof of existence can already be done in > elementary arithmetic. > *Physics is about constructing and testing models of physical reality, not about dreams. You can call the MWI a dream, but for me it's a nightmare. LOL. AG * > > BTW, the time irreversibility is not FAPP since the collapsed wf, when > inserted back into the SWE, recovers only itself exactly at an earlier > time, but not the original wf which collapsed. AG > > > Yes, OK. If there is such a collapse, but I don't see evidence. > *If you measure a system repeatedly, you get the same measurement. That's the evidence for collapse; that the system remains in the same eigenstate after measurement, not in the original superposition. AG* > I think it is human coquetry (grin). Nature loves to do things in many > exemplars, and elementary arithmetic loves that to. Personal uniqueness is > an illusion (provably so in the mechanist theory of mind). The evidences > are more on the side of reversibility, and unitary evolution. But of course > that might be false, and is still an open problem in the computationalist > theory. But there too, we already got some evidence for linearity and a > core symmetrical physical structure. > > Bruno > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 8:16:48 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 03 Sep 2016, at 21:02, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 11:52:55 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:27 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 11:07:09 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 31 Aug 2016, at 20:30, [email protected] wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 11:17:22 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 30 Aug 2016, at 18:23, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 11/06/2016 3:56 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>>>> > On 10 Jun 2016, at 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>>>>>> >> On 10/06/2016 1:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>>>> >>> On 09 Jun 2016, at 01:28, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>>>>>> >>>> In other words, FPI is just the statement that Alice and Bob >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> >>>> to look to find out which of the (+,+'), (+,-'), (-,+'), or >>>>>>> (-,-') >>>>>>> >>>> worlds they are in. I don't think that actually adds anything >>>>>>> >>>> significant to the discussion. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> That eliminates the physical spooky action at a distance which >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> >>> necessarily there in QM+collapse. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> You have yet to prove that -- assertion is not proof. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > By defining world by "closed for interaction", locality follows >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> > linearity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bruno, you specialize in these oracular pronouncements that mean >>>>>>> absolutely nothing. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This is just insulting, and add nothing but confusion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Avoid ad hominem patronizing tone and focus on what you do not >>>>>> understand or disagree with. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "locality follows from linearity" -- what a load of >>>>>>> total nonsense. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> OK, I was quick there, but I provided more details in *many* other >>>>>> posts. Please read most of a thread, not just a a sentence here and >>>>>> there >>>>>> and then adding to the prejudices. >>>>>> >>>>>> To be slightly less short, and explain, I was talking in the frame of >>>>>> the non collapse formulation of QM, and I was just saying that without >>>>>> any >>>>>> collapse, the linearity of the tensor product with the linearity of the >>>>>> SWE >>>>>> ensure that at any time everything is local, even computable, in the >>>>>> global >>>>>> third person picture. >>>>>> >>>>>> Basically, "physical non locality" needs to put some amount of 3p >>>>>> sense in the collapse of the wave, where in the MWI (and in arithmetic) >>>>>> the >>>>>> indeterminacies and the non local appearances are purely epistemic >>>>>> (first >>>>>> person or first person plural). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> > There are 1p statistical interference, but Bell's inequality >>>>>>> violation >>>>>>> > is accounted without FTL, which is not the case with collapse, or >>>>>>> > Bohmian particules. >>>>>>> > I gave the proof with others, and eventually you admitted that >>>>>>> there >>>>>>> > was no real action at a distance. But with one world, those are >>>>>>> real >>>>>>> > action at a distance. So I think the point has been made. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is no FTL mechanism in action in one world or many: Bell >>>>>>> non-locality obeys the no-signalling theorem. You have to get over >>>>>>> thinking that non-locality means FTL action. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Here's an article of interest. FWIW, I don't believe the >>>>>> no-signalling theorem puts this issue >>>>>> to rest. AG >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In all the thread we (me and Bruce) were agreeing with this, >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I haven't read every post in this thread, but from Bruce's remark >>>>> above, he apparently believes that you believe in FTL transmission of >>>>> information, and that since the no-signal theorem denies that, your claim >>>>> (or any claim of FTL transmission) is falsified. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Guess what, you were completely wrong. >>>>> >>>>> I was the one who denies the FTL. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *My text may have confused you. I thought you went to the MWI to deny >>>> FTL in this one-world. That's what I meant. But Bruce seems to deny FTL in >>>> this world, by saying the phenomenon is just a property of the wf, and in >>>> his appeal to the no-signalling theorem; as if to say, if you can't send >>>> information, there can't be FTL. But here "send information" in the >>>> context >>>> of no-signalling theorem just means you can't send a message of choice. AG >>>> * >>>> >>>> *What does FPI stand for? TIA, AG* >>>> >>>>> >>>>> The article I posted denies that the apparent contradiction between >>>>> relativity and non locality can be resolved simply by appealing to the >>>>> non-signalling theorem, which Bruce seems to assert. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I was the one asserting that with the MWI, even the Bell's violation >>>>> does not force FTL, even without signalling possible. >>>>> >>>>> My point, shared by others in the thread, was that with the MWI >>>>> restores both 3p determinacy, and 3p locality. The point of Clark and >>>>> Bruce >>>>> is that even with the MWI, Bell's inequality violation proves that nature >>>>> is 3p non local, and that action at a distance exists. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I can only go by his words. So I don't see that the article I posted >>>>> is irrelevant to the discussion. AG >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It was Bruce who claims that Bell's inequality violation shows that >>>>> FTL exists, even without possible signalling. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *Then why does he tell you to "get over it", it being FTL? AG* >>>> >>> >>> *Maybe he means that FTL exists in this world, so why resort to the MWI >>> to deny it. But then why does he bring up the no-signalling theorem? AG * >>> >> >> *Hope I didn't offend any true believers in the MWI, * >> >> >> MWI is a theory. I have often explain, as a logician, that MWI is not an >> interpretation but a different theory than Copenhagen. MWI = wave-function >> postulate. Copenhagen-QM = wave function postulate + collapse postulate. Of >> course both have some problem of interpretation (like all theories). I tend >> to not accept the notion of "physical world", and working in arithmetic I >> use only the notion of computation. Indeed, my result is that both the >> collapse of the wave and the wave itself are universal number's First >> Person phenomenologies, when we assume a form of Mechanist Hypothesis in >> cognitive science. Mechanism makes physicalism wrong. >> >> >> >> >> *but in extensive discussions about this on another MB, none of the true >> believers could give a coherent account of these other worlds; for example, >> where the energy comes from, * >> >> >> Energy is a "one-world" notion, but anyway, I don't believe in worlds, at >> least not until someone explains what they mean. For me, it is a convenient >> fiction. With Mechanism, a world is an extrapolation made by numbers >> sharing sheaves of computation verifying some measure weight, and such >> measure weighting must be explained through the logic of self-reference. >> You might take a look at my papers, like this one: >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html >> >> Or this one, if you can access it: >> >> http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2013.03.014 >> >> *and whether an observer in this world is reproduced in other worlds, and >> if so, with what memories. The MWI seems like a desperate attempt to avoid >> non-locality and/or non-linearity of QM. AG * >> >> >> Well, it avois the non linearity of the collapse, and its dualism. OK. >> But the "other worlds" are only a consequence of the contagion of the >> superposition of the particle (say) to the observer. If you look at a cat >> in the dead+alive state, you end yourself looking at a dead cat + looking >> at a alive cat. The given brain states are orthogonal and do not interact, >> but can still interfere statistically. This list is for people believing >> that "everything" is a simpler conceptual notion than any particular thing, >> and so welcome both the MWI in quantum physics, and the "many-computations" >> in arithmetic, that we get from Mechanism. I predicted the *appearance* of >> "many-worlds" before knowing about quantum physics measurement problem. >> >> About Bruce's points, maybe you should ask Bruce, as the cited post is a >> bit out of the context of the thread. >> >> You asked in another post what is the FPI. >> It is an acronym for First Person Indeterminacy, and it is the subjective >> indeterminacy that you get in the (classical) self-duplication. Again, look >> at the paper sane04 cited above, where this is made precise and explained. >> The FPI is the building brick of the argument showing that Mechanism and >> Physicalism are incompatible, and that physics is conceptually reduced to >> arithmetic when we assume mechanism. I show that this leads to testable >> consequences, and some are tested retrospectively with QM. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> >>>>> I agree that FTL (fast than light influence which not necessarily >>>>> exploitable for transmission of information) still exist, and I agree >>>>> that >>>>> it is logically possible, but people believing in that have the >>>>> obligation >>>>> to give evidence, and my point is that in the MWI, Bell's violation is no >>>>> more an evidence, as Bell supposes definite outcomes in definite >>>>> realties, >>>>> which makes no sense in the MWI, nor in computationalism more generally. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *I tend to agree that Bell's results assume one world. AG * >>>> >>> >> >> Good. I think some people disagree with this on this list, but I will let >> them to defend their point again, or not. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> Bruno >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> The question was specifically about some possible remnant of physical >>>>>> action at a distance in the MWI. We both know that the non signaling >>>>>> does >>>>>> not put light on this. Genuine physical action at a distance obviously >>>>>> exist in the QM-with-collapse, by Bell's inequality violation, but >>>>>> Bell's >>>>>> argument does not show action at a distance( in any unique branch if >>>>>> that >>>>>> exist), in the MWI. >>>>>> >>>>>> What we have is the contagion of superposition, and they never go >>>>>> quicker than interaction, that is at sub-speed of light. >>>>>> >>>>>> And that is why we can define, or represent the "world" by set of >>>>>> space-time events closed for interaction. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://people.uleth.ca/~kent.peacock/FQXi_v2.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Interesting (but out of topic indeed). >>>>>> >>>>>> Bruno >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> That adds nothing, indeed. That shows only that the paradoxes >>>>>>> came >>>>>>> >>> only from the axioms some have added to fit their philosophical >>>>>>> >>> prejudices. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> So you add axioms to suit your philosophical prejudices just as >>>>>>> >> others do -- how does that make your position any better than >>>>>>> that of >>>>>>> >> others? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > No. I subtract axioms. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Bohr's axioms: SWE + COLLAPSE + number (add,mult) (+ >>>>>>> > unintelligible theory of mind) >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Everett's axioms SWE + Number (add,mult). (+ mechanist >>>>>>> theory of >>>>>>> > mind) >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Your servitor's axioms: Number(add,mult). (+ mechanist >>>>>>> theory >>>>>>> > of mind) >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > And I don't pretend that is true, only that digital mechanism >>>>>>> makes >>>>>>> > this necessary and testable (modulo the usual "malin génies"). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All the above sets of axioms lead to non-local theories. You may >>>>>>> claim >>>>>>> just to subtract axioms, but that is as much choosing your axioms as >>>>>>> any >>>>>>> other procedure. And you have yet to show that you get the physics >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> this world out of your theory --and demonstrate the necessary >>>>>>> stability >>>>>>> of the physics. Just wishing evil genies away does not actually >>>>>>> banish them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bruce >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>>> Google Groups "Everything List" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/SJdbZNPRALg/unsubscribe >>>> . >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>> [email protected]. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> >> -- >> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
