On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 6:23 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 9:24:40 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, June 17, 2018, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 12:29:35 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 6:26 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 10:15:05 AM UTC, Jason wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:12 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * why do you prefer the MWI compared to the Transactional >>>>>>> Interpretation? I see both as absurd. so I prefer to assume the wf is >>>>>>> just >>>>>>> epistemic, and/or that we have some holes in the CI which have yet to be >>>>>>> resolved. AG * >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. It's the simplest theory: "MWI" is just the Schrodinger equation, >>>>>> nothing else. (it doesn't say Schrodinger's equation only applies >>>>>> sometimes, or only at certain scales) >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. It explains more while assuming less (it explains the appearance >>>>>> of collapse, without having to assume it, thus is preferred by Occam's >>>>>> razor) >>>>>> >>>>>> 3. Like every other successful physical theory, it is linear, >>>>>> reversible (time-symmetric), continuous, deterministic and does not >>>>>> require >>>>>> faster than light influences nor retrocausalities >>>>>> >>>>>> 4. Unlike single-universe or epistemic interpretations, "WF is real" >>>>>> with MWI is the only way we know how to explain the functioning of >>>>>> quantum >>>>>> computers (now up to 51 qubits) >>>>>> >>>>>> 5. Unlike copenhagen-type theories, it attributes no special physical >>>>>> abilities to observers or measurement devices >>>>>> >>>>>> 6. Most of all, theories of everything that assume a reality >>>>>> containing all possible observers and observations lead directly to >>>>>> laws/postulates of quantum mechanics (see Russell Standish's Theory >>>>>> of Nothing <http://www.hpcoders.com.au/theory-of-nothing.pdf>, >>>>>> Chapter 7 and Appendix D). >>>>>> >>>>>> Given #6, we should revise our view. It is not MWI and QM that should >>>>>> convince us of many worlds, but rather the assumption of many worlds (an >>>>>> infinite and infinitely varied reality) that gives us, and *explains >>>>>> *all the weirdness of QM. This should overwhelmingly convince us of >>>>>> MWI-type everything theories over any single-universe interpretation of >>>>>> quantum mechanics, which is not only absurd, but completely devoid of >>>>>> explanation. With the assumption of a large reality, QM is made >>>>>> explainable >>>>>> and understandable: as a theory of observation within an infinite >>>>>> reality. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jason >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *You forgot #7. It asserts multiple, even infinite copies of an >>>>> observer, replete with memories, are created when an observer does a >>>>> simple >>>>> quantum experiment. So IMO the alleged "cure" is immensely worse than the >>>>> disease, CI, that is, just plain idiotic. AG * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> There are many atoms, many planets, many solar systems, many galaxies, >>>> many Hubble volumes, and it is believed many universes. On what basis are >>>> you so certain there aren't many histories? (That is, other states in the >>>> wave function that are predicted to be there by our well established >>>> scientific theories, but which the theory explains we cannot see or >>>> interact with except in very limited controlled manners)? >>>> >>>> If you find MWI distasteful you might prefer to think of it as the >>>> many-minds interpretation as described by Heinz-Dieter Zeh, or the >>>> "zero-universe interpretation" as explained by Ron Garrett: >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc >>>> >>>> I think you are hung up on the "creation", I think it is conceptually >>>> easier to grasp under the understanding that it is all already there. If >>>> you look at the homepage of Wei Dai (who founded this e-mailing list >>>> <http://www.weidai.com/everything.html> 20 years ago) he outlines what >>>> he calls "a very simple interpretation of quantum mechanics >>>> <http://www.weidai.com/qm-interpretation.txt>" which is basically >>>> this: all the states are already there. >>>> >>> >>> *Sounds like Super-Determinism proposed by t'Hooft, and referenced >>> yesterday by Brent, which proposes the universe knows beforehand what kind >>> of experiment Joe the Plumber will perform. Too ridiculous for my tastes, >>> and of course untestable. IMO, one of the "achievements" of quantum theory >>> is to make otherwise intelligent persons totally gullible in what they >>> believe as plausible. AG* >>> >>>> >>>> >> I agree with you about super derterminism being too ridiculous to >> believe. But super derterminism is a different animal from "block time". >> Super derterminism is the idea that the universe conspires against all >> experimenters and knows what they will measure before they measure it, and >> chooses values they will measure to make things work out. It's reminiscent >> of Descartes evil demon. It requires an evil God. >> >> But block time, the idea that the future points in time are as real as >> past and present points doesn't need super derterminism. It's actually >> implied by special relativity. >> >> Block time plus MWI means universes aren't created, they're all already >> there. >> > > > *Seems like super-determinism to me. You're making a distinction with no > difference. AG* >
Superdeterminism says you and a remote partner could decide to use the digits of Pi to pseudorandomly select angles of measurement in a Bell experiment, then decide to use the digits of Euler's number. Yet somehow, the universe knew you and your friend had this agreement to use these digits of these constants, such that when it generated single pairs of photons, those photons would have just the right properties for QM statistics to not be violated. Also, the universe knew when you would decide to switch to use Euler's number, which perhaps was decided by the closing price of the stock market, all this information the universe knew and took into account when generating paired photons and embedding a single hidden variable with that photon. This is what Superdeterminism implies. Superdeterminism is very different from regular/plain "determinism", which every physical theory is (with the sole exception of wave function collapse). > > >> We just are able to differentiate which one(s) we end up in when we >> measure something. >> >> What color is your toothbrush? Before the memory enters your >> consciousness you're in a super position of possibilities. >> > > *I guess we should blame von Neumann for introducing linear vector > (Hilbert) spaces in the description of quantum systems. Although that > superposition is implied, those other universes don't have substantial > existence. You're mistaking dreams for reality. AG* > > Those other states are implied by our theories. They are predicted to exist. We have no evidence they don't exist. So why do you doubt them so strongly? Here is an equivalent example: 1. The cosmological background radiation observations tell us there are many more Hubble volume sized regions of space out there that we cannot see. 2. The theory of the finite constant speed of light tells us why we should not expect to see them. Do you believe in or doubt there are other Hubble volume sized regions of space beyond our cosmological horizon which we may never see nor interact with? Now for QM: 1. The Shrodinger equation which is verified by experimental observation tells us there are other states among a superposition of many states. 2. Decoherence theory tells us why we should not expect to see those other states on a macroscopic level. Do you believe in or doubt there are other states of the wave function which have decohered and which we may never see nor interact with? Jason -- 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.
