On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 2:23:14 AM UTC-6, stathisp wrote: > > > > On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 14:52, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > [email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> >> On 9/12/2019 8:11 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 12:26, Alan Grayson <[email protected] >> <javascript:>> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 11:01:54 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 7:45:22 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 4:20:46 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:45:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/ >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Many Worlds is where people go to escape from one world of >>>>>> quantum-stochastic processes. They are like vampires, but instead of >>>>>> running away from sunbeams, are running away from probabilities. >>>>>> >>>>>> @philipthrift >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This assessment is not entirely fair. Carroll and Sebens have a paper >>>>> on how supposedly the Born rule can be derived from MWI I have yet to >>>>> read >>>>> their paper, but given the newsiness of this I might get to it. One >>>>> advantage that MWI does have is that it splits the world as a sort of >>>>> quantum frame dragging that is nonlocal. This nonlocal property might be >>>>> useful for working with quantum gravity, >>>>> >>>>> I worked a proof of a theorem, which may not be complete >>>>> unfortunately, where the two sets of quantum interpretations that >>>>> are ψ-epistemic and those that are ψ-ontological are not decidable. There >>>>> is no decision procedure which can prove QM holds either way. The proof >>>>> is >>>>> set with nonlocal hidden variables over the projective rays of the state >>>>> space. In effect there is an uncertainty in whether the hidden variables >>>>> localize extant quantities, say with ψ-ontology, or whether this >>>>> localization is the generation of information in a local context from >>>>> quantum nonlocality that is not extant, such as with ψ-epistemology. >>>>> Quantum interprertations are then auxiliary physical axioms or >>>>> postulates. >>>>> MWI and within the framework of what Carrol and Sebens has done this is a >>>>> ψ-ontology, and this defines the Born rule. If I am right the degree >>>>> of ψ-epistemontic nature is mixed. So the intriguing question we can >>>>> address is the nature of the Born rule and its tie into the auxiliary >>>>> postulates of quantum interpretations. Can a similar demonstration be >>>>> made >>>>> for the Born rule within QuBism, which is what might be called the >>>>> dialectic opposite of MWI? >>>>> >>>>> To take MWI as something literal, as opposed to maybe a working system >>>>> to understand QM foundations, is maybe taking things too far. However, it >>>>> is a part of some open questions concerning the fundamentals of QM. If >>>>> MWI, and more generally postulates of quantum interpretations, are >>>>> connected to the Born rule it makes for some interesting things to think >>>>> about. >>>>> >>>>> LC >>>>> >>>> >>>> If you read the link, it's pretty obvious that Carroll believes the >>>> many worlds of the MWI, literally exist. AG >>>> >>> >>> Carroll also believes that IF the universe is infinite, then there must >>> exist exact copies of universes and ourselves. This is frequently claimed >>> by the MWI true believers, but never, AFAICT, proven, or even plausibly >>> argued. What's the argument for such a claim? >>> >> >> Given a sufficient number of trials, the probability that an event that >> can occur will occur approaches one. >> >> >> That assumes identical trials. A countably infinite set of universes >> could all be different. >> > > Yes, but consider an infinite universe where the cosmological principle > applies, which does not seem an unreasonable assumption. >
It is unreasonable if the universe has been expanding for finite time, which is generally accepted. AG > >> -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/85fa34e2-d53a-4cf1-8be9-0fb795c04785%40googlegroups.com.
