On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 7:32:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 9/25/2019 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 24 Sep 2019, at 17:44, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 6:23:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 24 Sep 2019, at 10:22, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 3:05:39 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 1:36:42 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 8:44:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 9/23/2019 6:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:44:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 9/23/2019 11:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> *But other quantum experts use decoherence to explain quantum >>>>>> phenomena without invoking multiple universes.* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Without invoking" doesn't mean "denying". >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It does if you believe in applying Occam's Razor. AG >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> True. But I'm still waiting for pt to quote this expert saying he >>>>> explains quantum phenomena without MW. He keeps implying it's Zurek, but >>>>> I >>>>> just read Zurek's paper on quantum Darwinism again and ISTM Zurek is >>>>> assuming MWI throughout. QD is just his solution to the basis problem. >>>>> >>>>> Brent >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Zurek is not on a book tour, nor does he tweet, but after the rollout >>>> of Carroll's book, one can only conclude: >>>> >>>> * Many Worlds is religion, not science.* >>>> >>>> @philipthrift >>>> >>> >>> Right. You'll notice how my comment that the MWI is tantamount to >>> "hubris on steroids" was never responded to. Hopefully, he'll be denied >>> tenure, and his book and personage can go into the dustbin of history, >>> where it belongs. AG >>> >> >> >> >> I can't believe (well, I guess I can believe) the number of physicist who >> think MWI is a valuable contribution to science. If you tell them >> otherwise they they you that you don't understand physics. Many Worlds is >> "in the math" (as Sean Carroll claims) so it must be true. >> >> They engage in magical thinking, but think they are doing science. >> Amazing. >> >> >> The many-histories is a logical consequence of the theory. To assume a >> theory without accepting its consequence is just wrong, or irrational. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> > Which specific theory formulation are you talking about? > > > Any formulation without physical wave reduction. Everett’s one, for > example. With our without the Born rules (the fact that they are derivable > or not is not much relevant, as you know I do think that Gleason theorem > makes them derivable, but that is not relevant here). > > > > > There's *quantum measure theory*: > > Axioms in section 2: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.0589.pdf > > > That is a very interesting paper. > > > > But I don't see where Many Worlds as Carroll presents them are necessarily > implied by these axioms. > > > They are implied by the SWE, or Dirac. May be the best argument is that > the founder have invented the notion of collapse because that is the only > way to avoid them. > > QM predict that I f I put cat in the state dead + alive, and if I look at > the cat living/dead state, I will put myself in the state > seeing-the-cat-dead + seeing the cat-alive, and without a wave reduction > postulate, no branche of that superposition can be made more real or less > real than the other. > > I don’t need quantum mechanics to bet on many-world: like Deutsch I > consider that the two slit experiment is enough. > > > I think the alternative is something suggested by Zurek. He shows that > decoherence plus einselection will make the reduced density matrix strictly > diagonal, i.e. he solves the preferred basis and derivation of the Born > rule. Then he suggests, but doesn't really argue, that the universe cannot > have enough information to realize all the non-zero states on the diagonal > and so only a few can be realized and that realization is per the Born > rule. This is what Carroll would dismiss as a "disappearing world > interpretation"; but it would provide a physical principle for why worlds > disappear, i.e. branches of lowest probability are continually pruned. > > Brent > > > I have one question (for Carroll or Zurek):
Suppose world W branches *(in reality, not in "bookkeeping")* to worlds W0 and W1. If reality is pure information (basically purely mathematical bits of 0s and 1s), then that sort of "production" seems OK. But what if W is (or contains) matter. Based on matter contents of W, W0, and W1: *If the matter contents of W0 plus W1 combined is greater than the matter content of W,* *how was the extra matter "produced"?* (According to John Clark, people who have read Carroll's book know the answer to this question.) @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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a718c619-5548-4166-b1f1-0fbdeae07cfc%40googlegroups.com.
