On 10/14/2019 2:50 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 4:05 PM 'Brent Meeker'
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> It's not assumed its concluded based on overwhelming experimental
evidence
/> But in the theory that's just adding the Born rule on empirical
evidence. /
In physics empirical evidenceis the *only* reason you add anything.
But then MWI can't claim to be simpler and "purer" than CI.
> /For the same reason it implies that only one world is realized.
/
How does the empirical evidence from the 2 slit experiment imply there
is only one world?
> /Given unitary evolut Probability can be conserved just by
renormalizing as in CI, whatever the rule.
/
But given the fact that the Schrodinger Equation is 100% deterministic
what is the physical reason we must deal with probabilities at all?
MWI can help us understand why.
/>> If you ask "probabilities of what?"in MWI the answer can't
be probability of existing because MWI has committed to all
solutions/
> But it can be the probability that something similar to me as I
am right now will see Moscow in one second, I say "similar"
because the me that might see Moscow in one second would not be
exactly the same as the me of right now because that me would see
Moscow and I don't right now.
/> OK, how similar does that something have to be./
42. How similar does Moscow have to be to be counted as Moscow?
> /Does it have to be conscious? /
*NO!*
>> I'll be damned if i can see what consciousness has to do with it.
The Born rule would also give the probability a film camera with a
automatic one second timer will take a picture that when developed
will turn out to be a picture of Moscow.
/> But according to MWI it will also take a picture of Washington. /
Yes. That's why the Born Rule can only give probabilities. Under the
right circumstances you might be able to say the developed picture
will probably be Moscow, but some version of you will see Washington,
and there is a non zero probability a electron can tunnel through a
energy barrier that it could never do if classical physics was true.
Nobody is claiming the MWI allows predictions to be made with total
certainty.
> /The Born rule isn't part of MWI...it has to derived/
This is physics not mathematics, the Born rule isn't derived it's
observed, and it's observed to work.
But then MWI can't claim to be simpler and "purer" than CI. I has to
add a prescription about how to deviate from simple unitary evolution.
> /(or more often just borrowed from CI)./
The CI doesn't own the Born Rule, neither does the MWI. All modern
interpretations of quantum mechanics are compatible with the Born
Rule, they had better be! If one wasn't nobody would be foolish enough
to be talking about it today.
> /Suppose the camera is triggered by the decay of a radioactive
atom and it is taking a picture of a clock. What time will it have
on its film? /
I can't give you a certain answer, only a probability.
/> Must we suppose there are an uncountable infinity worlds with
different times recorded?/
Carroll admits in his book that it isn't clear if there are a
denumerably infinite number of worlds or a larger infinity, in fact
there may not be a infinite number of worlds at all, there might only
be an astronomical number to a astronomical power of them.
I like Many Worlds because it gives me a little intuitive
understanding why we can only make probabilistic predictions even
though the underlying mathematics is completely deterministic, and I
like it because it gives a precise definition of "measurement".
What is this precise definition of which you write? That your
consciousness becomes correlated with an eigenvalue of some Hermitean
operator? Does MWI define when a measurement has taken place or not?
Brent
Of course just because I like it doesn't mean it can't be dead wrong.
But I would bet money on one thing, if the MWI is wrong then something
even stranger is true.
John K Clark
--
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/CAJPayv1OLw6nAnj5ALgCCzDT1MQiKyDBEHSzcpvnNp0N0%3Di9eA%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1OLw6nAnj5ALgCCzDT1MQiKyDBEHSzcpvnNp0N0%3Di9eA%40mail.gmail.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/c70c673a-a95f-af24-5db8-009dc97bd20e%40verizon.net.
