On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 6:18 AM <agrayson2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 10:51:45 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 19 Aug 2018, at 07:34, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 5:27:08 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 2:13:32 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 5:52 PM, <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> > >>>>> *I'm from Missouri; SHOW ME! * >>>> >>>> >>>> I show you the double slit experiment. David Deutsch said if other >>>> worlds are just a interpretation of the double slit experiment then >>>> dinosaur are just a interpretation of dinosaur bones. I'm not sure I'd go >>>> quite as far as Deutsch but I see what he's driving at. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> > >>>>> *How does a differential equation on the time rate of change of the >>>>> wf, imply that ALL eigenvalues of ALL possible eigenstates of some >>>>> operator, must be measured?* >>>>> >>>> >>>> A differential equation can't imply that, it doesn't imply anything >>>> about measurement and that is exactly the point. You say ad hoc that there >>>> is a mysterious magical thing called "measurement" which you can't define >>>> that does all sorts of mysterious magical things that you can't explain. >>>> Many Worlds doesn't care what a "measurement" means because it has nothing >>>> to do with it and it doesn't stick in anything about the wave the equation >>>> describes collapsing because the mathematics says nothing about anything >>>> collapsing, the Copenhagen people like to stick that stuff in ad hoc. >>>> . >>>> >>> >>> *So your claim is that because the SWE doesn't say anything about >>> measurements, presumably the wf continues to evolve forever. How does this >>> imply that all possible eigenvalues must be measured? If not measured, then >>> what? The wf just continues to evolve forever? But how does this imply that >>> all eigenvalues must be realized, some would say "measured". IMO, there's >>> still a huge gap between the SWE as a mathematical statement, and what you >>> claim must be measured, or shall we say observed. AG * >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> > >>>>> *One could just assume that the wf is purely epistemic and leave these >>>>> additional postulates, which aren't used to calculate probabilities, in >>>>> the >>>>> dustbin of history.* >>>>> >>>> >>>> Many physicists believe in the "shut up and calculate" quantum >>>> interpretation and do exactly that, and that works fine if all you're a >>>> engineer and all you want is to make the next iPhone, but its less than >>>> satisfying if you have the slightest bit of curiosity about whats going on >>>> at the most fundamental level of reality. It seems to me if all physics >>>> could do is say that if a instrument is in orientation X the needle on a >>>> voltmeter will read 42 and in orientation Y it will read 43 and no further >>>> conclusion could be drawn from that then physics would be a incredibly dull >>>> subject because I'm really not really all that interested in needles on >>>> voltmeters in themselves, I'm interested in what they may imply. >>>> >>> >> *I want to know what's real, what's out there, but with the basic premise >> of the MWI on very shaky ground IMO, I feel we are on a false path. Just >> too many Brunos as the result of simple quantum experiments. If the basic >> premise had stronger justification, I might change my opinion. AG* >> >> >> >> Why? If you can agree that 2+2=4 independently of you, then all those >> many Bruno, and many Grayson in many Missouri already exist independently >> of you. >> > > *This doesn't follow, or at least IMO you haven't adequately argued it. I > believe things exist independent of me because I don't believe in > solipsism, plus there seems to be strong everyday evidence for a world > which operates independently from my existence. Your claim is a huge > stretch, and seems based on whim. For you, dreams are real. Why should they > be? Sounds like a reincarnation of some Hindu philosophy which was very > popular in America in the 1960's. AG * > >> >> This paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01826.pdf
Walks through and shows directly how the supposition of "all computations" leads to familiar physical consequences: • “What I observe seems to be fundamentally nondeterministic; it seems that that there is irreducible randomness that governs my experience.” • “But it seems that this randomness is itself subject to simple laws, which I can write down in concise equations. I can feed these equations into a computer and use them to predict future observations quite successfully, even if only probabilistically.” So it can explain both the appearance of simple (to describe) physical laws, as well as the seeming non-determinism of outcomes of measurements. 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 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.
