On 6/21/2018 2:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jun 2018, at 00:28, Brent Meeker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 6/19/2018 7:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Jun 2018, at 22:41, Brent Meeker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 6/16/2018 10:16 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
/Another universe comes into existence when Joe the Plumber
performs, say, a spin measurement./
But a measurement (whatever in the world that means) does not need
to be made and there is nothing special about Joe, if Everett
is right the same thing happens every time an electron in Joe's
skin encounters a photon, or for that matter whenever an electron
anywhere encounters anything.
That's where MWI gets fuzzy.
Not more than QM itself. We can define a world by a branch of the
universe wave. But such world will be “world” only as part of a
personal history. Everett disagrees, but his “relative state” is a
better wording than “many-worlds” which is often confusing.
Do all the submicroscopic events that make to macroscopic
difference create different worlds? That can't be right because
"worlds" are classical things. So the Heisenberg but problem seems
to reappear in different form.
Heisenberg cut disappear, it is just that worlds differentiate from
our perspective when they make difference for us, like when they can
no more interfere. There is no cut, only the quantum wave (in the
Schroedinger picture) and relative state related to macroscopic
irreversibility, which needs only the classical chaos to be
irreversible FAPP. Histories are internal things, already a form of
first person plural notion.
Right. But how FAPP does it have to be, how irreversible, in order
that it constitutes a conscious distinct state? That's how the
Heisenberg cut problem reappears at a different level.
Very quickly, like when you mix milk in the coffee. Pure statistics
theory provides the numbers, like when we can use Gauss e^(-x^2)
instead of Pascal triangle. You don’t need 0 on the diagonal, only
tiny numbers.
I think you mean OFF the diagonal. But how do you know you only need
tiny numbers, and how tiny? I have thought that perhaps there should be
a smallest non-zero unit of probability; but it has been pointed out
that even tiny numbers may add up when the density matrix is transformed
to some other basis.
You don’t need purely orthogonal state, the big numbers and classical
chaos will lead to the right quasi classical phenomenology,
So you say. But that requires a theory of "phenomenology", i.e. a
theory of how perception is realized.
Brent
for most relative observers. We don’t need to kill all white rabbits,
just to make them relatively rare.
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 [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
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.
