On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 6:52:41 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 5/19/2018 8:19 PM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:59:03 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 5/18/2018 10:53 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 5:29:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 5/18/2018 10:14 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> >>> *So why don't you draw the obvious inference? If those other worlds >>> don't exist -- which if I can read English has been your passionate >>> position all along -- then quantum measurements in this world, the only >>> world, are statistical and hence NOT reversible in principle. AG* >>> >>> >>>> but it is different in each branch of the wave function, so reversing >>>> this branch does nothing for the others, and does not restore the original >>>> superposition. Thus the process is irreversible in principle >>>> (nomologically >>>> irreversible -- to reverse violates the laws of physics). >>>> >>> >>> *But if those other worlds don't exist, it makes no sense whatever to >>> rely on them to establish irreversible in principle in this world (as >>> distinguished from statistically irreversible or irreversible FAPP). It >>> seems you want to have it both ways; that many worlds really don't exist. >>> but quantum measurements in this world are irreversible in principle due >>> the existence of many worlds. AG* >>> >>> >>> You don't handle uncertainty well, do you. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> You know, it's not a perfect analogy, but I don't believe that when I >> pull the one arm bandit with 64 million possible outcomes, that 64 million >> (minus one) worlds are created, each with an identical copy of me, getting >> those other outcomes. What do you believe? AG >> >> >> I believe I'll wait for a better theory. One that includes gravity and >> spacetime and consciousness. >> >> Brent >> > > I see. But you seem too ready to defend the MWI when it appears to imply > irreversible in principle. Or do you accept Bruce's claim that the > projection operator implies irreversible in principle? AG > > > Either of them implies irreversiblity. Whether it is "in principle" > depends on what principle you invoke, mathematics, practice, ...? MWI puts > information in orthogonal subspaces where we exist in copies such that each > copy can act only in one subspace and hence cannot put together the > information from other subspaces. A projection operator is just a > mathematical model of this confinement to one subspace. > > Brent >
Please; no evasive games. We can forget about the MWI, given its absurdity. Does, or does not the projection operator imply irreversibility in principle as Bruce claims? 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.
