On 6/24/2018 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jun 2018, at 22:12, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 6/21/2018 2:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jun 2018, at 00:28, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 6/19/2018 7:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Jun 2018, at 22:41, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> 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.
Indeed.
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.
It is just that the numbers are tiny only from your (3p) personal
points of view. You brain needs to be enough of a mixture for
consciousness to differentiate into universal machine (relative)
state. In the case (which I doubt) that the brain is a quantum
computer, we would be able to exploit the numbers which are not tiny
in the relevant base to exploit quantum computing ability.
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.
But I extract the quantum from such a phenomenology. Perception is
mainly [a]<a>p with [a] designing a variant of the logic of
self-reference G, or G*.
It is provably realised in all models of the consistent extensions of
very elementary arithmetic.
(You might need to study some books on self-reference (the provability
logic) to get the point).
So you're claiming that you have derived QM from perception (as
described by provability). But how does it then follow that perception
is classical? Also that doesn't solve the problem of small
off-diagonal terms not being small when written in a different basis.
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.
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.
