On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 8:35:02 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Alan Grayson <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected] >> <javascript:>> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 08 Sep 2016, at 21:43, [email protected] <javascript:> 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 > > 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. > > Jason >
Sounds like a variation on solipsism; awfully subjective. Because I can imagine the unrealized (in my world) outcome, it must exist in some other world or branch? Does the same apply for an outcome of a slot machine or a roll of the dice? Can you demonstrate any necessity for this, or is just something you want to believe? AG -- 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.
