On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 5:39:43 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:53 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected] > <javascript:>> 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 >
Wiki isn't clear in its definition of pointer states. WRT the double slit experiment, would it be correct to say the impacts with very high probability are "pointer states" and those with a low or zero probability are respectively less, or not at all pointer states? TIA, AG > > -- 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.
