On Monday, November 27, 2017, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 8:03:47 AM UTC, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:54 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:45:43 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 27 November 2017 at 17:36, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:30:34 AM UTC, [email protected] >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:21:30 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 27 November 2017 at 16:54, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:48:58 AM UTC, [email protected] >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:44:25 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 27 November 2017 at 16:25, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:07:03 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 26 November 2017 at 13:33, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You keep ignoring the obvious 800 pound gorilla in the room; >>>>>>>>>>>>> introducing Many Worlds creates hugely more complications than it >>>>>>>>>>>>> purports >>>>>>>>>>>>> to do away with; multiple, indeed infinite observers with the >>>>>>>>>>>>> same memories >>>>>>>>>>>>> and life histories for example. Give me a break. AG >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What about a single, infinite world in which everything is >>>>>>>>>>>> duplicated to an arbitrary level of detail, including the Earth >>>>>>>>>>>> and its >>>>>>>>>>>> inhabitants, an infinite number of times? Is the bizarreness of >>>>>>>>>>>> this idea >>>>>>>>>>>> an argument for a finite world, ending perhaps at the limit of >>>>>>>>>>>> what we can >>>>>>>>>>>> see? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> --stathis Papaioannou >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, in my view we live in huge, but finite, expanding >>>>>>>>>>> hypersphere, meaning in any direction, if go far enough, you return >>>>>>>>>>> to your >>>>>>>>>>> starting position. Many cosmologists say it's flat and thus >>>>>>>>>>> infinite; not >>>>>>>>>>> asymptotically flat and therefore spatially finite. Measurements >>>>>>>>>>> cannot >>>>>>>>>>> distinguish the two possibilities. I don't buy the former since >>>>>>>>>>> they also >>>>>>>>>>> concede it is finite in age. A Multiverse might exist, and that >>>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>> likely be infinite in space and time, with erupting BB universes, >>>>>>>>>>> some like >>>>>>>>>>> ours, most definitely not. Like I said, FWIW. AG >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> OK, but is the *strangeness* of a multiverse with multiple copies >>>>>>>>>> of everything *in itself* an argument against it? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Stathis Papaioannou >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> FWIW, I don't buy the claim that an infinite multiverse implies >>>>>>>>> infinite copies of everything. Has anyone proved that? AG >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If there are uncountable possibilities for different universes, why >>>>>>>> should there be any repetitions? I don't think infinite repetitions has >>>>>>>> been proven, and I don't believe it. AG >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> If a finite subset of the universe has only a finite number of >>>>>>> configurations and the Cosmological Principle is correct, then every >>>>>>> finite >>>>>>> subset should repeat. It might not; for example, from a radius of >>>>>>> 10^100 m >>>>>>> out it might be just be vacuum forever, or Donald Trump dolls. >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Stathis Papaioannou >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Our universe might be finite, but the parameter variations of >>>>>> possible universes might be uncountable. If so, there's no reason to >>>>>> think >>>>>> the parameters characterizing our universe will come again in a random >>>>>> process. AG >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Think of it this way; if our universe is represented by some number on >>>>> the real line, and you throw darts randomly at something isomorphic to the >>>>> real line, what's the chance of the dart landing on the number >>>>> representing >>>>> our universe?. ANSWER: ZERO. AG >>>>> >>>> >>>> But the structures we may be interested in are finite. I feel that I am >>>> the same person from moment to moment despite multiple changes in my body >>>> that are grossly observable, so changes in the millionth decimal place of >>>> some parameter won't bother me. The dart has to land on a blob, not on a >>>> real number. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Stathis Papaioannou >>>> >>> >>> Don't you like thought experiments? I have shown that the parameters of >>> our universe won't come up in a random process if the possibilities are >>> uncountable (and possibly even if they're countable). Maybe you prefer a >>> theory where Joe the Plumber shoots a single electron at a double slit and >>> creates an uncountable number of identical universe except for the >>> variation in outcomes. Does this make more sense to you? AG >>> >> >> I think your distaste with MWI comes from an incorrect view of how >> splitting occurs. Shooting a photon of at a slit doesn't instantly create >> millions or infinite numbers of universes. >> > > *But that's NOT what the enthusiasts of the MWI claim. They say all > possible results are realized, that is measured, in other universes, which > come into existence when a measurement is made in this universe. AG* >
Does this mean you are OK with the description of QM as I have provided below? Jason > > >> All it does is put the photon into a "multi-valued" state. Any object >> this photon later interacts with can then also become multi-valued. >> >> It works similarly to multiplication, if a photon "P" is in state: >> (P-went-through-left-slit + P-went-through-right-slit) >> And it interacts with a measuring devices "D", then the result is D * P, >> or D * (P-went-through-left-slit + P-went-through-right-slit) or >> (D*P-went-through-left-slit + D*P-went-through-right-slit) >> >> Physically, what this means is the superposition of the photon spread to >> put the detector in a superposition. The detector is in both the state of >> having detected the photon go through the left slit, and having detected >> the photon go through the right slit. >> >> Now if you as a human read the result of the detector, then you (the >> particles of your body and brain) also get put into a super-position, so >> you get: >> >> Brain*(D*P-went-through-left-slit + D*P-went-through-right-slit) = >> (Brain*D*P-went-through-left-slit + Brain*D*P-went-through-right-slit) >> So there is now a brain that interacted with the detector that measured >> the photon go through the left slit + a separate state where the brain >> interacted with the detector that measured the photon go through the right >> slit. Each of these two states has a consistent history and record. When >> Wigner comes in and asks you what you saw, he too catches the contagion of >> your super-posed particles, and splits. So it is not infinite universes >> being duplicated, just ordinary particles which follow multiplication-like >> rules when they interact with one another. I am attaching some slides I >> put together to explain this better with some diagrams. >> >> Jason >> >> -- > 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:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','everything-list%[email protected]');> > . > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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.
