> On 23 May 2018, at 05:46, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > > On 5/22/2018 6:55 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com <mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> >> On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 1:45:39 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> On 5/22/2018 5:59 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 12:44:06 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 5/22/2018 3:46 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:41:11 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:06:39 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5/22/2018 6:39 AM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote: >>>>>> I'm OK with getting rid of the projection operator. Are you now claiming >>>>>> information is lost or inaccessible in these orthogonal subspaces and >>>>>> therefore quantum measurements cannot be reversed? >>>>> >>>>> They are inaccessible to the people of any one world of the MWI. >>>>> >>>>> No! Irreversible FAPP! Think heat bath or Bucky Balls. >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence> >>>>> >>>>> Examples of non-unitary modelling of decoherence >>>>> >>>>> Decoherence <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoherence> can be modelled >>>>> as a non-unitary <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_operator> process >>>>> by which a system couples with its environment (although the combined >>>>> system plus environment evolves in a unitary fashion).[4] >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence#cite_note-Lidar_and_Whaley-4> >>>>> Thus the dynamics <> of the system alone, treated in isolation, are >>>>> non-unitary and, as such, are represented by irreversible transformations >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreversibility> acting on the system's >>>>> Hilbert space <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_space>, . Since the >>>>> system's dynamics are represented by irreversible representations, then >>>>> any information present in the quantum system can be lost to the >>>>> environment or heat bath <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_bath>. >>>>> Alternatively, the decay of quantum information caused by the coupling of >>>>> the system to the environment is referred to as decoherence.[3] >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence#cite_note-Bacon-3> >>>>> Thus decoherence is the process by which information of a quantum system >>>>> is altered by the system's interaction with its environment (which form a >>>>> closed system), hence creating an entanglement >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement> between the system >>>>> and heat bath (environment). As such, since the system is entangled with >>>>> its environment in some unknown way, a description of the system by >>>>> itself cannot be made without also referring to the environment (i.e. >>>>> without also describing the state of the environment). >>>> >>>> Notice that this doesn't explain how one gets to a single result. >>>> >>>> I did, but you're avoiding the key point; if the theory is on the right >>>> track, and I think it is, quantum measurements are irreversible FAPP. The >>>> superposition is converted into mixed states, no interference, and no need >>>> for the MWI. >>> >>> You're still not paying attention to the problem. First, the superposition >>> is never converted into mixed states. It approximates, FAPP, a mixed state >>> in some pointer basis (and not in others). Second, even when you trace >>> over the environmental terms to make the cross terms practically zero (a >>> mathematical, not physical, process) you are left with different outcomes >>> with different probabilities. CI then just says one of them happens. But >>> when did it happen?...when you did the trace operation on the density >>> matrix? >>> >>> I think the main takeaway from decoherence is that information isn't lost >>> to other worlds, but to the environment in THIS world. >> >> But that ignores part of the story. The information that is lost to the >> environment is different depending on what the result is. So if by some >> magic you could reverse your world after seeing the result you couldn't get >> back to the initial state because you could not also reverse the "other >> worlds". >> >> What "other worlds"? If they don't exist, why should I be concerned about >> them? AG > > That's pretty much the CI attitude and that of most working physicists. But > those interested in fundamental questions would still like to pin down the > time and how of the process of branching and especially how the classical > world arises from this process. Metaphysicians like Bruno want to use a kind > of implied "everythingism" to simplify their overarching theory of the world > by saying that "everything happens"...just somewhere else. If you say only > your world exists then you are committed to an inherent randomness in the > world...some find that anathema.
No. I am just saying that if the brain and our bodies are natural physical digitalis able machine, then There is no ontological universe, physicalism is false, and we have to extract the physical laws by the measure given of the first person points of view imposed by machine’s incompleteness. Then I show that if we are willing to abandon the collapse superstition, the facts sides much more strongly on (weak) mechanism than on physicalism. I am a logician. I prove that any rational machine understand this point. The fact that the (Löbian) machine proves their own incompleteness, makes eventually physics a branch of the theology/metaphysics of numbers. I want to use nothing. I derive all proposition that I say in two ways: intuitively with the thought experiences, and mathematically with the universal machine interview. I just say that if mechanism is true, materialism (duality or monist) just can’t work, and that the evidence favour strongly mechanism on materialism. The everything is then given by the universal dovetailer/the universal machine/the sigma_1 propositions. And the measure is the unique one that we should be able to derive from one of the three quantum logics offered by the universal machine for the observable. To discard those conclusions, you have to introduce actual infinities in the working of the brain, and very special and testable one. But the test so far, our inferred physics, rather fit well with mechanism, thanks to QM (without collapse). Everett was just ignorant that once he had defined the first person identity of the observer by the memories sequences, it *has* to justify why the quantum computations seems to win below the digital substitution level. Bruno > > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
