On 5/18/2018 9:58 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 4:43:15 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 5/4/2018 8:01 PM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote:
On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 1:47:59 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 5/4/2018 5:33 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 9:44:49 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 5/4/2018 12:07 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Unfortunately, it is not the case that you
can implement absolutely any unitary
transformation in this way. For instance,
you cannot implement the unitary
transformation that would reverse a
totally decohered event.
*If the decoherence was unitary, why can't the
process be reversed statistically, analogous
to the case of the classical cooling gas where
we imagine the hugely improbable incoming and
absorption of the previously outgoing IR
photons? AG*
It's mathematically reversible, but it's not
reversible by you or any combination of powers in
this world no matter how magical because this
world is orthogonal to other worlds that contain
the information you would need to reverse it.
Which is why I suggested this be called
nomologically irreversible.
Brent
*I don't buy this argument. Since those other worlds
don't exist, one cannot speak of information lost to
them. AG
*
Then you can adopt the "disappearing worlds"
interpretation and banish them. But then you're faced
with the CI problem of exactly when and why they vanish.
Brent
Worlds which disappear must first exist, and the worlds of the
MWI, like the "branches" of the SWE, don't exist.
Then you need some rule as to why they don't exist. They are all
the same in the SWE solutions.
*Those who affirm the existence of those Worlds have the burden of
proof. Instead, they simply assert that all outcomes must be
manifested. Where did that assumption come from? *
It's not an assumption; it's a consequence of a theory.
*Tegmark in steroids? If we had a rule for their non existence, or
equivalently, a rule which tells us what outcome will occur, we'd
likely be running amok of Bell's theorem. AG*
We have a rule that tells us the probability of various outcomes of a
measurement. The problem is that it models measurement by a process
that violates the theory that describes all other physical processes and
it gives no operational definition to distinguish a measurement from any
other process. So it seems to become a matter of human intent whether a
certain physical process is a measurement or not. Because of this, Bell
thought that the concept of measurement should never appear in a
fundamental theory.
Brent
--
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.
