> On 16 Oct 2018, at 05:29, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > > On 10/15/2018 11:21 AM, smitra wrote: >> On 15-10-2018 12:40, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 5:08:42 PM UTC, smitra wrote: >>> >>>> On 14-10-2018 15:24, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> In a two state system, such as a qubit, what forces the >>>> interpretation >>>>> that the system is in both states simultaneously before >>>> measurement, >>>>> versus the interpretation that we just don't what state it's in >>>> before >>>>> measurement? Is the latter interpretation equivalent to Einstein >>>>> Realism? And if so, is this the interpretation allegedly falsified >>>> by >>>>> Bell experiments? AG >>>> >>>> It is indeed inconsistent with QM itself as Bell has shown. >>>> Experiments >>>> have later demonstrated that the Bell inequalities are violated in >>>> precisely the way predicted by QM. This then rules out local hidden >>>> >>>> variables, therefore the information about the outcome of a >>>> measurement >>>> is not already present locally in the environment. >>>> >>>> Saibal >>> >>> What puzzles me is this; why would the Founders assume that a system >>> in a superposition is in all component states simultaneously -- >>> contradicting the intuitive appeal of Einstein realism -- when that >>> assumption is not used in calculating probabilities (since the >>> component states are orthogonal)? AG >> >> It may look like one can re-interpret QM as being consistent with Einstein >> realism, but Bell disproved this (if you assume locality). Note also what >> Bruce said about "simultaneously". >> >> My own idea is that we need to think about how to interpret time evolution, >> instead of making all this fuss about superpositions. Without collapse, the >> time evolution of a system can be interpreted as a simple change of basis. >> You still have access to the initial state, at least in theory. But if the >> system collapses (in the MWI this is then an effective collapse due to you >> getting entangled with the system), you cannot access the initial state >> anymore (in practice, you might not have been able to do that anyway). >> >> This all suggests to me that we live in a multiverse where each moment of >> time defines a different universe, memories of the past refer to alternative >> universes. We need to keep in mind that in experiments we can only ever >> directly measure the present state. > > But what does 'the present state' mean? The present second? The present > milli-second? "Present" is not a relativistic concept.
I would have said that “present” is the most relativistic concept ever. It depends on t. (I don’t put an exclamation point to avoid a confusion with the factorial). Now, I might agree that “present state of mind”, a bit like “observer moment” is a rather fuzzy term. In the logic of the first person, that is, the logic S4Grz (the logic of []p & p), which is also a logic of subjective time, and which is imposed by incompleteness, there are topological model where the “present instant” is a enumerable sequence of interval enclosing each other. The intersection of all those interval is not an open set, and does not itself belong to the "present instant”. Goldblatt, the modal logician who has studied S4Grz, but also the modal logic B and shown its relation with Quantum logics, which I use to extract quantum logic from arithmetic self-reference, has also studied a modality related to 4-dimensional Minkowski space-time (the modality is “now and forever”. It shows it to obey a modality studied by Diodorus, and known as the Dioderean Modality by the Ancient, and is characteristic axiom is <>[]p -> []<>p, known by modern logician as 2. S4.2 is the logic S4 + that formula named “2”. I speculate that X1* (the logic of []p & <>t & p, atomic p obeying p -> []p, (the modal view of sigma_1 completeness, the restriction to the computable, computationalism translated into a language that the universal machine can understand) might hide some interesting modalities, imposing relativistic geometry on the structure of the present instant. Bruno (*) Goldblatt, Robert. Diodorean Modality in Minkowski Space time, Studia Logica 39 (1980), 219-236. The other two keys paper (used in an important way in my derivations) are GOLDBLATT R., 1978, Arithmetical Necessity, Provability and Intuitionistic Logic, Theoria, Vol 44, pp. 38-46. For the intutionistic logic of the first person (the first person I) and, GOLDBLATT R. I., 1974, Semantic Analysis of Orthologic, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 3, pp. 19-35. for the extraction of the (variate) yet orthomodular quantum logics. Here the fact that “orthomodilarity” is not elementary (definable in first order logic) comes from the fact that Löb’s formula is itself not elementary. > >> If you dig up a bone of a dinosaur, what you are seeing is a result of >> processes in your brain right now. These are then the result of photons >> interacting with your eye and ultimately you can draw an inference about >> life on Earth, say, 150 million years ago. > > And you can draw an inference about a few tenths of a second ago. But you > can't draw and inference about now. > > Brent > >> But an explanation for the presence of the bones is ultimately just >> information compression, we can account for information in our universe >> "today" in terms of information present in an alternative "past" universe. >> >> According to classical physics, information is conserved in a one to one way >> between the past and present, and this allows for an interpretation of time >> evolution that says that our universe is evolving in time. in QM this naive >> interpretation breaks down, information is not conserved after collapse when >> you consider only one term of a superposition. But there is no problem if >> you just stick to the view where each moment in time defines a universe. The >> idea that all information present in one universe can be accounted for in >> terms of a single past universe", is false. >> >> Another aspect of this is how a particle can tunnel through a potential >> barrier. Here there is no intermediary state where the particle is in the >> "classically forbidden region". So, we have a final state, an initial state, >> but no intermediary state. Clearly this fits in much better with the idea >> that time evolution is not real, it just allows you to account for >> information in some universe in terms of information in other universes. >> >> Saibal >> > > -- > 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. -- 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.
