On Friday, December 8, 2017 at 3:45:26 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:57 PM, <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > >> The weak case for the MWI stands on its own; nothing to do with string >> theory. In the latter, if you believe it, there are some number, possibly >> infinite, of possible universes, and they are all "natural"; that is, >> produced by nature. In MWI, as the Joe the Plumber example shows, the >> creations seem unnatural, >> > > Joe is no more unnatural that any other part of the universe, he obeys > the laws of physics just like everything else and if the SWE is correct > then anything that > Joe can do Joe does do. >
The fundamental unproven assumption, and IMO the core fallacy of the MWI, is the belief that what CAN occur, necessarily MUST will occur. I don't object to unknown natural processes creating universes, but when a human is claimed to have the ability to do it by simply doing a single outcome of a double slit experiment, I see it as a patently ridiculous claim. Again, how do you justify this apparent absurdity? AG > > But in effect in MWI there ARE measurements regardless of what you want to >> call them. >> > > And in at least one of the MWI universes there is a conscious being, but > like measurement that has nothing to do with it. > But in your replicas of universes, that single conscious observer is reproduced identically in all universes. So why have you changed your model? All I was asserting is that in Copenhagen you don't need a conscious observer to get a measurement outcome. So in response to my clear assertion which Feynman explained, you are muddying the waters. AG > > >> > >> The problem with adding terms to the SWE is that it would, I think, >> amount to asserting the existence of a local hidden variable. >> > > There are certainly problems in doing that but they are your problems not > mine. > T > he Schrodinger Wave Equation > says absolutely nothing about collapsing and yet you insist it does, > I never made that assertion. I just said we observe a collapse -- all probabilities converge to zero except for the probability of the outcome which converges to unity -- and at present we can't explain it. You think MWI explains it, but IMO that's wishful thinking. AG > so like it or not you're going to have to add terms to it. And good luck > with that. > > > > >> How many times do I have to remind you that consciousness has nothing to >> do with it >> ? >> > > 42. > > > >> *> And by the way, the only reason string theory came up with 10^500 >>> and not a infinite number is because it assumes that neither space nor time >>> is continuous, but nobody knows if that assumption is valid.* >>> >> >> True, but if space, say, is not continuous, how is motion possible? >> > > The integers are not continuous but they are possible, and you can move > from 3 to 5 by just adding 2, maybe space is like that. Or maybe not, > nobody knows. But if space and time are continuous then string theory > predicts a infinite number of universes just like Everett. > > > > >> Does Tegmark take into account different orders of infinity in his >> calculations? >> > > Everett originally thought there were a non-denumerable infinite number of > other worlds > > like the number of points on a line. > > A few years later Neill Graham tried to reformulate the theory so you'd > only need a countably infinite number of branches > > like the number of integers, > > and at first > > Everett liked the idea but later rejected it and concluded you couldn't > derive probability by counting universes. Eventually even Graham seems to > have agreed and abandoned the idea that the number of universes was so > small you could count them. > > Infinity can cause problems in figuring out probability but Everett said > his theory could calculate what the probability any event could be observed > in any branch of the multiverse, and it turns out to be the Born Rule which > means the probability of finding a particle at a point is the squaring of > the > absolute value > of the Schrodinger Wave function at that point. > > The Born Rule has been shown experimentally to be true but the Copenhagen > Interpretation just postulates it, Everett said he could derive it from his > theory it "emerges naturally as a measure of probability for observers > confined to a single branch (like our branch)". He proved the mathematical > consistency of this idea by adding up all the probabilities in all the > branches of the event happening and getting exactly 100%. > Interesting. But how can he add them up if there are uncountably many universes? AG > T > heoretical physicist > > Dieter Zeh said Everett may not have rigorously derived the Born Rule but > > he > > did justify it and showed it "as being the only reasonable choice for a > probability measure if objective reality is represented by the universal > wave function [Schrodinger's wave equation]". Rigorous proof or not that's > more than any other quantum interpretation has managed to do. > > John K Clark > > -- 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.
