On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 09:41, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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]> 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.) > I can see that you have a problem with this but if it’s how the world is who are you to tell it it should not be that way? > -- 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/CAH%3D2ypXKK69ZE-8z84d5X_SOj6jwX07UC3i71Cj-cUyXYhD3GQ%40mail.gmail.com.
