On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 12:53:45 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:43 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected] > <javascript:>> 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. >
Oh,* that* again. It's like Groundhog Day (the movie). > >> 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 > Coherency is overrated. - pt -- 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.
