On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 11:48, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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]> 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 >> > > Differentiation rather that duplication of matter is one possibility, but > duplication of matter is not logically impossible either. Empirically, we > have that matter cannot be created, but that is within a single world. > -- 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%3D2ypXMAsjQQpj%3DiF8_aV-pQVjgF0Jjxc9awZYFZ-AgTERRtA%40mail.gmail.com.
