On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 4:30:01 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > > > On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 09:41, Philip Thrift <[email protected] > <javascript:>> 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 >
See https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/everything-list/E3WLUdnW8jI @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/a80c0eb2-75a6-468c-94ae-4ad7461d149f%40googlegroups.com.
