On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:43 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 12:28:19 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:19 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 12:00:18 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:51 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 11:39:43 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:53 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 10:28:39 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 3:45:32 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 6:58 AM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 1:53:15 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/4/2018 12:25 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 1. Histories originate at an emitter e and end at screen >>>>>>>>>>> locations s on a screen S. >>>>>>>>>>> 2. At each s there is a history bundle histories(s). A weight >>>>>>>>>>> w(s) is computed from the bundle by summing the unit complex >>>>>>>>>>> numbers of the >>>>>>>>>>> histories and taking the modulus. >>>>>>>>>>> 3. The weight w(s) is sent back in time over a single history >>>>>>>>>>> h*(s) selected at random (uniformly) from histories(s). >>>>>>>>>>> 4. At e, the weights w(s) on backchannel of h*(s) are received >>>>>>>>>>> (in the "present" time) >>>>>>>>>>> 5. A single history h*(s*) is then selected from the >>>>>>>>>>> distribution in 4. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> How is it selected? Above you said "at random". But that >>>>>>>>>>> implies there is already a probability measure defined on the >>>>>>>>>>> histories. >>>>>>>>>>> How is this probability measure determined? Or put another way how >>>>>>>>>>> do you >>>>>>>>>>> determine what histories to consider to form the bundles in step 2? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Brent >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Selection happens via quantum Darwinism. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you have even the faintest understanding of Quantum Darwinism? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bruce >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How is *sum over histories with Darwinian selection* (as defined) >>>>>>>> not quantum Darwinism? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Operationally, what is different? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - pt >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Sum over histories with Darwinian selection* is consistent with >>>>>>> *Quantum >>>>>>> Darwinism as a Darwinian process* [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0745 >>>>>>> ]. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No, you clearly don't understand Quantum Darwinism! Zurek's Darwinism >>>>>> is selection of pointer states, not one history from a bundle. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bruce >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Histories are (hidden) states. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It becomes obvious that you don't really understand consistent >>>> histories, either. >>>> >>>> Bruce >>>> >>> >>> I've never once mentioned *consistent histories*, only *sum over >>> histories*. >>> >> >> Inconsistent histories? >> >> >>> (Did you watch the lecture by Fay Dowker?) >>> >> >> No, I don't watch utube videos. >> >> Pointer states [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.04101 ] can best be >>> understood as related to histories via the *Reflective Path Integral* >>> interpretation of the EPR experiment. >>> >> >> Your arxiv references do not support your case. Reverse causation, as it >> seems to be required in your account, is simply a nonsense. Huw Price lost >> the plot a long time ago. >> >> There is no competition between the different paths between the initial >> and final state -- which is what is used to calculate probabilities in the >> path integral approach. So there is no Darwinian (or other) selection of >> one such path over others. Quantum Darwinism is about something quite >> different. Even Wikipedia agrees! Read Zurek's papers on this. >> >> Bruce >> > > > OK. As Kay Dowker stated in her presentation: The path integral > interpretation is still under development. > As has been pointed out, path integrals are a calculational tool, not an interpretation. > My (retrocausal) version of Darwinian selection w.r.t. multiple histories > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_histories> *is* *the next > development.* > I see, it is not actually a coherent proposition at the moment....... Bruce -- 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.
