On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 12:43:05 PM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Nov 2017, at 20:40, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 6:56:52 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18 Nov 2017, at 21:32, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 1:17:25 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/18/2017 8:58 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> * > I think "must" is unwarranted, certainly in the case of the MWI.
>>>> Rather, it ASSUMES all possible measurements must be realized in some
>>>> world. **I see no reason for this assumption other than an
>>>> insistence to fully reify the wf in order to avoid "collapse".*
>>>>
>>>
>>> The MWI people don't have to assume anything because
>>> there is absolutely nothing in t
>>> he Schrodinger
>>> Wave E
>>> quation
>>> about collapsing, its the Copenhagen people who have to assume that
>>> somehow it does.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's not just an assumption. It's an observation. The SE alone didn't
>>> explain the observation, hence the additional ideas.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> *Moreover, MWI DOES make additional assumptions, as its name indicates,
>> based on the assumption that all possible measurements MUST be measured, in
>> this case in other worlds. *
>>
>>
>> That is not an assumption. It is the quasi-literal reading of the waves.
>> It is Copenhagen who added an assumption, basically the assumption that the
>> wave does not apply to the observer: they assumed QM was wrong for the
>> macroscopic world (Bohr) or for the conscious mind (Wigner, von Neumann)
>> depending where you put the cut.
>>
>
> *CMIIAW, but I see it, the postulates tell us the possible results of
> measurements. They don't assert that every possible measurement will be
> realized.*
>
> What do you mean by realize?
>
*Realized = Measured. AG*
Without collapse, the measurement are described by the quantum laws.
>
*That's precisely what QM doesn't describe, which constitutes part of the
measurement problem. AG*
An observer along a superposition up + down, *is* the same state as the
> observer along up superposed with the observer down, if he look in the {up
> + down, up - down} basis, "he" will see he is in up+down, but if he looks
> in the {up down} basis; the observer consciousness differentiate, in his
> first person perspective, but the solution of the wave describes the two
> outcomes realized from the point of view of each observer. You can't decide
> to make one of them into a zombie.
>
*I have no idea what you mean. Please try again. AG*
> *So I see an additional assumption in the MWI. AG*
>
> I disagree, and Everett would disagree. I am aware most people claims
> Everett and Copenhagen are differet intepretations, but from a
> metamathematical obvious view: Everett and Copenhagen are different
> theories.
>
*They have identical postulates but Everett adds another non-trivial one as
I indicated above; namely, that every possible measurement is realized,
that is measured, in another world. I don't see why you insist on denying
something so obvious. AG*
> Everett is the SWE, and Copenhagen is SWE + collapse. We might accept that
> Everett theory has not yet justify all aspects of what could be the
> physical reality (and provably so if we assume digital mechanism in
> cognitive science), but, to be short, it is less crazy than any theory
> making the collapse into a physical phenomenon.
>
*Why crazy? What we seem to observe IS collapse; that is, all
probabilities evolving to zero except the measured probability evolving to
1, by an as-yet unknown physical process. AG *
> *I reject this hypothesis. What I do concede is that in the case of the
>> Multiverse of String Theory, if time is infinite and the possible universes
>> finite -- 10^500 -- all possible universes will be, or have been, realized.
>> AG*
>>
>>
>> OK, but that is not Everett-Deustch "multiverse" (relative state,
>> many-worlds, etc.).
>>
>
> *Too much parsing! I was trying to explain that the Multiverse of String
> Theory is manifestly *different* from the Many Worlds of the MWI. AG *
>
>
> Yes. you are right on this. In string theory with collapse (if this could
> even make sense), you have 10^500 physical realities. In string theory
> without collapse, you have (10^500 * Infinity) physical realities, at first
> sight (with mechanism they are just "coherent dreams" (sigma_1 true
> sentences seen in the Bp & ~Bf mode) by Numbers).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>> Bruno
>>
>
> --
> 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.
