> On 21 Jun 2018, at 18:51, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 6/21/2018 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 19 Jun 2018, at 07:24, Brent Meeker <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/18/2018 4:33 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 12:01 AM, Brent Meeker <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6/17/2018 2:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018, <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[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 >>>>> <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. >>>> >>>> You've anthropomorphized the universe. The universe doesn't conspire or >>>> do anything, it just is. Experimenters are just physical systems (as they >>>> are in MWI) so it's not strange that in a deterministic theory (and MWI >>>> claims to be deterministic) their actions should also be determined. >>>> >>>> >>>> See my reply on this regarding Pi and the Stock Market. There is a major >>>> gulf between determinism and super determinism. Super determinism >>>> requires "something operating behind the scenes to fool us" either at the >>>> time of the universe's creation or with the creation of each photon pair. >>> >>> So what. That's what determinism means. It means EVERYTHING IS >>> DETERMINED BY THE PAST. >>> >>> Read t'Hooft. >>> >>>> Regular determinism doesn't. >>> >>> Define "regular" determinism. >> >> >> Everything is determined. >> Super-determinisme: everything is determined to make you belief in one world >> with very strange correlation looking like FTL action at a distance. > > There's no logical or empirical difference, only your attitude that you're > being fooled.
? That applies to any theory. Superdeteminisme + computationalism can explain everything by any suitable oracle. Bruno > > Brent > >> >> I have no problem with determinism (and it is compatible with free-will). >> Super-determinisme is not a better explanation than “God made it that way, >> don’t try to understand”. >> >> 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 >>> <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 [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 >> <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 [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 > <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 [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.
