> On 13 Sep 2019, at 15:28, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 5:18:50 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 13 Sep 2019, at 00:44, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected] >> <javascript:>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 11:44:51 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 8:45:22 AM UTC-5, 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/ >> >> <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 >> >> >> QBism is not the dialectical opposite of MWI. This is: >> >> https://twitter.com/DowkerFay/status/1110683583570759680 >> <https://twitter.com/DowkerFay/status/1110683583570759680> >> >> @philipthrift >> >> The MWI and this path integral interpretation are both ψ-ontic and are thus >> not opposite. > > I agree. I would even add that with Feynman path formalism, the reduction of > the wave packet does no more make sense. Feynman said it in his little book > on light: he consider the Wave reduction as a confusion and appeal to magic > (footnote at the end of the second chapter). > > Bruno > > Not for those of us who watch horseraces! Applied to QM, the wf becomes > irrelevant when the measurement occurs.
I agree. But relevant/irrelevant is not relevant when we search a conceptual understanding. That the wave is irrelevant after a measurement does not mean that there has been an actual physical collapse, which would entails FTL action at a distance, as Einstein explained in 1927 at the Solvay Congress (and made precise in the EPR paper, and then more with Bell, etc.). Then Everett QM (QM without collapse) the appearance of collapse is explained by the wave (adding or not the Born rule). > Wave packet reduction, by which I assume you mean "collapse", is nothing more > than a bookkeeping device. AG I can’ agree more, but then, you get the many relative worlds/histories. Which is nice, given that the many computations is a theorem of arithmetic, and the “many worlds” appearance is provable from that, even without ever mentioning quantum mechanics. Bruno > > > >> >> LC >> >> -- >> 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] <javascript:>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fe4b02a2-9fcb-4126-b2ad-fb9982f20fc1%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fe4b02a2-9fcb-4126-b2ad-fb9982f20fc1%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/10ffd66d-76ce-474b-a4e4-4f858f0e5153%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/10ffd66d-76ce-474b-a4e4-4f858f0e5153%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/1F74F084-E656-4C6D-86AD-B74F69A46198%40ulb.ac.be.
