On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 9:07:43 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/16/2018 1:46 PM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 7:25:20 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/16/2018 2:02 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> One hour ago I had coffee. You are now in universe U, where I had >>> coffee. Hadn't I had coffee this morning, you would now be in universe >>> U', where I didn't have coffee. I guess you could say that I created >>> universe U, but I don't think I will be worshiped has a god any time >>> soon. >>> >> >> * Applying the MWI to this situation, it would look something like this; >> you go into a restaurant and have coffee. As a result, immediately, another >> universe is created which has a copy of you, inclusive of your memories, >> where you DON'T to go into the restaurant. Can't the see the foolishness of >> what the MWI assumes? Namely, everything that's possible to happen, MUST >> happen. AG * >> >> >> Yes, that's a common conclusion and presumably why this is called the >> "everything-list". >> > > > > > * Does the name of the list imply the discussion is limited to the MWI or > that it's in the ballpark of reality??? AG Do me a favor and try to explain > the problem I posed a few messages back, or maybe on the Entanglement > thread, about the principle of superposition. Specifically, the role of > interference and what it has to do with the interpretation that a system in > a superposition is in all component states simultaneously. This seems to be > the case even when the component states are orthogonal as a basic property > of linear algebra, yet interference among the states (the non orthogonal > case?) seems necessary to get the double slit probability density. TIA, AG * > > > You seem confused about interference and entanglement. Entanglement means > there's been some past interaction so there are cross terms in the reduced > density matrix of two entangled things. They are "interfering" with one > another. But this is in general not observable because they are > interfering with lots of other stuff too. When you refer to double slit > experiments showing interference, it is because the interference has been > isolated to one simple effect that we can observe. > > Brent >
*Suppose I write a wf in an orthogonal vs non-orthogonal basis. In both cases, the system can be interpreted as being in all component states simultaneously due to the properties of linear algebra, that is vector addition. But does interference exist in the latter case due to non orthogonality? TIA, AG * > > > > >> It isn't actually an implication of QM though. QM forbids lots of >> things, https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0702121v1. And MWI is just an >> interpretation. We don't have a quantum theory of spacetime and when we do >> it may rule out the MWI. So one shouldn't become too invested in it or >> it's contrary. >> >> 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > 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.
