> On 21 Jun 2018, at 18:51, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/21/2018 1:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 19 Jun 2018, at 07:24, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net 
>>> <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 6/18/2018 4:33 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 12:01 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net 
>>>> <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 6/17/2018 2:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018, <agrayson2...@gmail.com 
>>>>> <mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 12:29:35 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 6:26 AM, <agrays...@gmail.com <>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 10:15:05 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:12 AM, <agrays...@gmail.com <>> 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 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 
>> <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 
> <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.

Reply via email to