On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 6:08 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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]> 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). > Given your repetitive harping on half-baked path integral ideas, I thought repetition was the way forward..... Bruce >> 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.
