On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 08 Sep 2016, at 21:43, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 1:15:15 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 08 Sep 2016, at 18:22, [email protected] wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 7:53:23 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 07 Sep 2016, at 20:06, [email protected] wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 11:16:38 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 06 Sep 2016, at 17:42, [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 4:38:53 AM UTC-6, >>>>>>> [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I understand your pov. It has but one problem. You ignore the >>>>>>>> elephant in the room; namely, those other worlds or universes >>>>>>>> necessary for >>>>>>>> the outcomes not measured in this world to be realized. But you have an >>>>>>>> out, stated in another post. They form part of your imagination. Not >>>>>>>> good >>>>>>>> enough from my pov. AG >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I should also add that the MWI sheds no light, AFAICT, on the >>>>>>> measurement problem; that is, why we get the outcome we get. As far as >>>>>>> collapse contradicting SR via the result of Bell experiments, I am not >>>>>>> sure >>>>>>> about that conclusion. If FTL occurs, it may be the case that in some >>>>>>> frames Alice's measurement occurs first, in other frames Bob's >>>>>>> measurement >>>>>>> occurs first. I tend to think this muddies the waters on the issue of >>>>>>> FLT >>>>>>> transmission and contradictions with relativity. AG >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The "MWI" explains already a part of the mind-body problem when >>>>>>> formulated in the Digital Mechanist Frame. You don't need to even know >>>>>>> QM >>>>>>> to understand the high plausibility of the "many-computations". >>>>>>> If FTL occurs, and you keep both QM and SR, then an action in the >>>>>>> future can change the past, and physical causility becomes meaningless. >>>>>>> With mechanism, physical causality is not yet guarantied, to be sure, >>>>>>> but I >>>>>>> would throw digital mechanism if it could lead to future -> past >>>>>>> physical >>>>>>> action (it does not make sense). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ah, you wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Possible correction: my remark about relativity might apply to how >>>>>>> events are seen from a frame moving FTL -- that is, a breakdown in >>>>>>> causality -- and might not apply to Alice/Bob situation. AG >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, OK, then. But it would apply if there were a collapse (in one >>>>>>> universe), even if Alice needs to send two bits of information to >>>>>>> transformed the effect (and send or get one qubit). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The "collapse" does not even refer to anything I can make sense of. >>>>>>> It looks like a continuous invocation of God. As an explanation, it >>>>>>> looks >>>>>>> like a continuum of blasphemes (in the theology of the universal >>>>>>> machine). >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Here's what collapse means to me; the wf evolves from a solution of >>>>>> SWE, namely a superposition, to a delta function centered at the >>>>>> measurement value. No one knows, or has a model how this transformation >>>>>> occurs.It's in the category of a TBD, possibly unknowable. It seems >>>>>> empirically based since repeated measurements of the same system result >>>>>> in >>>>>> the same outcomes. I don't necessarily believe in primary matter's >>>>>> existence. But its statistical persistence seems undeniable, whereas the >>>>>> many worlds has yet to manifest any persistence except in the minds of >>>>>> its >>>>>> advocates. AG >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The MWI is only the SWE taken literally. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Maybe that's the problem; taking a calculational tool too seriously. >>>>> AG* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> If an observer O observes a cat in the superposition d + a (dead + >>>>>> alive), >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *But that never happens. The state of superposition exists, if it >>>>> does, when the box is closed, and ceases when the box is opened. * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Then the SWE is wrong. >>>>> >>>>> You beg the question by postulating that QM is wrong outside the box, >>>>> but there are no evidence for that, given that Everett showed the >>>>> consistency of QM-without-collapse with the facts, using the simplest >>>>> known >>>>> antic theory of mind (mechanism) >>>>> >>>>> >>>> *The fact is the cat is dead OR alive when the box is opened, and >>>> presumably alive before the box is closed. So all I am doing is refuting >>>> your claim that any observer observes a superposition of states. AG * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In QM+collapse, which assumes that QM is wrong somewhere (but where? No >>>> unanimity of collapse-defenders agree on this). >>>> >>>> Without collapse, the cat is in the superposition state (dead+alive), >>>> and when an observer look at the cat, he entangles itself with the cat >>>> state, and the final state is O-a alive + O-d dead (linearity of tensor >>>> product). Then by linearity of the SWE, O-a lives a *phenomenological >>>> collapse" like if the cat was reduced to "alive", and O-b lives a >>>> phenomenological like if the cat was reduced to "dead", but in the 3p >>>> picture, no reduction ever occurred. >>>> >>>> >>>> Bruno >>>> >>> >>> Sorry, but what you write makes no sense. When you look at the cat, >>> presumably after box is opened, the cat is either alive or dead. You may be >>> entangled with it, but at that point in time there is no superposition of >>> alive and dead. AG >>> >>>> >>>> >> There is, but you are now part of the superposition. You have >> differentiated into two non-interacting brain states. One of which is part >> of the history: >> >> A) Atom decayed, Geiger Counter Detected it, Poison Release, Cat Died, >> You saw a dead cat, Your brain remembers seeing a dead cat >> B) Atom did not decay, Geiger Counter Never Detected Anything, Poison >> still contained, Cat still alive, You saw a live cat, Your brain remembers >> seeing a live cat >> > > *In the context of the MWI, an observer in this world see one of the > alternatives, say the first. So we can say the cat in this world has won > the lottery. Why must there be a cat in some other world -- a world that > comes into existence when the cat in this world has survived -- and lose > the lottery? Oh, the wf is a superposition and continues to evolve. But > look at the wf. It's a solution in terms of space and time. I see no Alive > or Dead state as a solution of the SWE. So your mentor, Bruno, speaks > foolishly despite his sophistication. I think it's called a category error. > AG * > > > The system remains in the superposition of (A+B). The super position of >> the atoms state has led to all the other superpositions regarding the cats >> state, and now your state, and can spread at up to the speed of light as >> the multi-state particles carry forward their interactions with the >> environment. >> > > *But the superposition of the radioactive states can NOT be interpreted to > mean the atoms are simultaneously in both states, Decayed and Undecayed. I > explained why recently. Hence, the cat, which can be imagined as sharing > that superposition of the radioactive states, is not simultaneously in both > Alive and Dead states. AG * > *To summarize; you have two fatal problems; you can't explain the emergence of the other world when an experiment is done in this world -- its infrastructure and energy, including its additional observer -- and you misinterpret the meaning of the wf for the radioactive states. AG* > >> Jason >> >> >> 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/to >> pic/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.
