> On 27 Sep 2019, at 21:10, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 12:53:14 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 27 Sep 2019, at 09:35, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 2:01:45 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> Le ven. 27 sept. 2019 à 08:41, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <>> a écrit >> : >> >> >> On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 7:01:19 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 6:54:59 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: >> It seems that nearly everyone on the list has a strong opinion about Sean >> Carroll's new book, but has anyone other than me actually read it? >> >> John K Clark >> >> I have not read his book, but I have read his papers and the one he >> coauthored with Sebbens. I know what he has done. I am definitely agnostic >> about MWI as I am with all interpretations. Carroll and Sebens has though >> opened the door to a relationship between the Born rule and MWI, and I >> suspect quantum interpretations in general. Now that is something I find >> potentially very interesting. >> >> LC >> >> >> >> See if Sean Carroll answers the question of "weighing" worlds: >> >> How much is too Many Worlds, is it just right? >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/E3WLUdnW8jI/MLPg3dAhAgAJ >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/E3WLUdnW8jI/MLPg3dAhAgAJ> >> >> >> 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"? >> >> >> Two answers so far: >> >> 1. If an infinity of indiscernible universes already exist at the start and >> are only differentiating/diverging (instead of splitting), then no matter is >> created, all of it was already there. >> >> 2. 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. >> >> >> And you forgot 3- it's always the same matter in w0 and w1, just seen from >> another POV, like a circle in a 2d plane could be thought to be from a >> sphere or a cylinder intersecting a 2d plane, so if you see the many 2d >> planes intersecting the cylinder, they see each a part of it, no new circle >> are created on each plane. >> >> Quentin >> >> >> >> >> Sorry I missed it. This is the first I've read that answer. >> >> Keep them coming! >> >> BTW Sabine Hossenfelder just posted her Many Worlds view: >> >> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html >> <http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html> >> >> @philipthrift > > > See my answer to spudboy. There is no matter, and 0 physical universe, just > the computations emulated by the +/* structure of arithmetic; that is, all > computations. That include the quantum one, but that does not explain the > quantum one. To explain them, we have to prove that only them win the first > indeterminacy problem in arithmetic (or there will be an appel to something > non Turing emulable or first person recoverable. > > But even with quantum mechanics, that problem can be solved, as the laws are > statistical, and the universe never interact. Linearity precludes us to steal > the oil in a parallel universe. Amazingly, if QM was not 100% linear (if the > wave equation was only the first term of some series) we would be able to > interact in between universe, but thermodynamic would get wrong, relativity > would become wrong, well, nobody try this anymore. > > Bruno > > > > > If There is no matter, and [whatever follows] -- if that is true -- then I am > happy with anything the Many Worlders say is real, or anyone else's > "interpretation" of reality. It doesn't matter :) because then one is just > talking about fiction, i.e. criticizing texts (what people write).
That is valid only if you define real by material. But if matter is not real, then, as no one doubt about the material appearances, it might mean that something else might be real, like 2+2 = 4 has to be real to be able to define what is a digital machine, just to name an example. 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/b4492144-2e17-44a3-9fcd-a518a3b4ecf6%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b4492144-2e17-44a3-9fcd-a518a3b4ecf6%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/108D78FA-79AF-48E3-9979-0192FAF52D5A%40ulb.ac.be.
