> On 23 Sep 2019, at 20:59, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 1:30:35 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 20 Sep 2019, at 14:57, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 7:39:14 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 6:31:15 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 17 Sep 2019, at 16:04, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> From a pragmatic perspective, I do not see any Everettian MW (theory, math, >>> ideas, formulations, interpretations or whatever they want to call it) in >>> computational quantum mechanics: >>> >>> https://www.simonsfoundation.org/flatiron/center-for-computational-quantum-physics/software >>> >>> <https://www.simonsfoundation.org/flatiron/center-for-computational-quantum-physics/software> >>> >>> If MW were important, it would be there. >> >> >> All computational theory (quantum or not) implies the "Many Computations”. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> I guess. But I was looking at the actual libraries of computational QM >> programming repositories, and there is a lot of Monte Carlo for example but >> nothing explicitly Many Worlds. >> >> In Sean Carroll's advocacy of Many Worlds: >> >> https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/02/19/the-wrong-objections-to-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics/ >> >> <https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/02/19/the-wrong-objections-to-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics/> >> >> The people who object to MWI because of all those unobservable worlds >> <http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/06/04/does-this-ontological-commitment-make-me-look-fat/> >> aren’t really objecting to MWI at all; they just don’t like and/or >> understand quantum mechanics. Hilbert space is big, regardless of one’s >> personal feelings on the matter. >> >> So in Sean's presentation, if you object to Many Worlds then you don't >> like/understand quantum mechanics. > > > Quantum Mechanics is “many-world” right at the start, (like Mechanism). That > is why the founders have add the collapse postulate, but that leads all the > time to non-sense, or to proposal that quantum mechanics is wrong. > > > > >> >> [ But one could start instead with a (quantum) measure space: >> https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0589 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0589> ] >> >> When scientists proceed from the mathematics of any theory to an ontology of >> nature, they are being more of a religious guru than a scientific one. > > That is correct. Even a theorem in the theology of the machine, ironically > perhaps. > > But that is valid for a universes, whatever the cardinal a is, from zero to > the cardinal of Laver … > > Now when doing metaphysics seriously, the number of universe and histories > become a subject of matter, and we can try different theories, but with > mechanism, it always multiplied the observers, which is annoying or pleasing > according to our taste, but have no voice in the matter of searching the > truth. > > As we cannot observe any “universe”, the consequence of the metaphysical > cardinal of universes must be indirect, of course. With mechanism, we get 0 > universes, even 0 token, but infinitely many types, and when universal type > meet universal type, they multiply innumerably. > > Bruno > > > > > A review just out by Tom Siegfried on Carroll's Many Worlds book > > > https://www.sciencenews.org/article/sean-carroll-something-deeply-hidden-quantum-physics-many-worlds > > has this: > > But other quantum experts use decoherence to explain quantum phenomena > without invoking multiple universes. And as Carroll admits, the decoherence > process does not require belief in the reality of the other branches.
The term “universe” is not well defined, and I have no clue how we can assume QM, and claim that decoherence eliminate the “mutiple histories”. That seems like pure magic to me. Also, I don’t need quantum mechanics to believe in all computations, just Church’s thesis to be sure to get really *all* of them by the universal dovetailing or the true sigma_1 sentence. Arithmetic, or any combinatorial algebra, admits canonical “multiple histories” interpretation, that no universal machine can miss, except for a finite time (number of steps). > It just seems to him (and many others) to be the most elegant explanation for > quantum mysteries. > > This is sad and funny. The others don't have a big book tour. > > I'm pretty much in agreement now more than ever with Alan G. here. The Many > Worlds advocates are in some sort of "world" of reality denial. Not sure what you mean here. Bruno > > > @philipthrift > > > -- > 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/97b127bb-7e06-4f9d-879f-78ea301bb12d%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/97b127bb-7e06-4f9d-879f-78ea301bb12d%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/2DBDEFD7-72AF-4BE4-A460-11A0E723773C%40ulb.ac.be.
