On 11/19/2019 6:57 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 5:26 AM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
/>>> Only things that are nomologically possible given
your particular initial conditions can happen./
>> Or to say the exact same thing with different words,
everything that can happen does happen.
> /Hmmm! You have to be careful that you are not just saying the
hat happens, happens!/
Anything that does not violate the laws of physics, particularly
quantum physics, can happen.
That's not quite right. Events inconsistent with the laws of physics
can't happen. But also things inconsistent with initial or boundary
conditions (which are typically classical) can't happen. So it is not
JUST the SWE.
If you fire a electron at 2 slits observing it going through the left
slit would be OK with Schrodinger's equation, and so would observing
it going through the right slit, and if you don't observe the slits at
all it would be OK with Schrodinger's equation to deduce from the
resulting interference pattern that the single electron went through
both slits. Yes that is absolutely ridiculous but don't blame me,
blame God.
/>>> And that rules out things like "there is a copy of me
that turns left whenever I turn right...."./
>> That would be true only if you assume the wave function
collapses, and Schrödinger says absolutely nothing about that,
it was tacked on by people who wanted only one world.
/> Nothing to do with collapse. /
It has everything to do with collapse. Copenhagen people say when the
electron hits the photographic plate the wave function collapses and
the electron makes up its mind where it is and assumes a discreet
position, and that's why it makes a sharp spot and not a big smudge on
the plate. Many Worlds people say otherwise, not because they enjoy
being contrary but because they don't know how else to explain the
bizarre results of the 2 slit exparament.
/> Why is it that you many-worlds advocates always accuse someone
who opposes you of assuming some collapse? Rubbish, it assumes no
such thing./
If the wave function collapses then an evolving quantum object, such
as yourself, will be in one and only one state tomorrow. If the wave
function does NOT collapse then you won't be ( "you" being defined as
anything that remembers being Bruce Kellett today).
/>>> Additional assumptions are needed if you want to make
sense of questions like" "What will a being that remembers
being John Clark today see tomorrow."/
>> Like what?
/> That beings like John Clark, with identifiable characteristics,
actually exist at all./
The only assumption is that the Schrodinger equation means what it
says, and it says nothing about it collapsing. You can add extra terms
to the equation and make it collapse but Occam would not approve,
those additional mathematical complexities do not improve predictions
one bit, they do nothing but get rid of those other worlds.
>>>/ he /[Everett] /was something of an idiot because he did
not see that you could not get probabilities out of a
deterministic theory /
>> You can if the theory is deterministic but not realistic as
Many Worlds is, that is to say if a deterministic interaction
between 2 particles always produces more than one outcome.
> Actually, I thought one of the attractions of the many worlds
theory was that it was realistic -- in the sense that the wave
function really exists a a physical object,
I don't know where in the world you got that idea. Even probability is
pretty abstract but you don't even get that until you take the square
of the absolute value of the wave function, which contains imaginary
numbers by the way. How much more different from a physical object do
you want?
/> How much more realistic do you want?/
It would need one hell of a lot more to be realistic! A theory is
realistic if it says a particle is in one and only one definite state
both before and after an interaction even if it has not been observed.
Many Worlds is about as far from that as you can get.
> /Nevertheless, the SWE does not give a probability without some
further assumptions. Why do you think that MWI advocates spend so
much time an effort trying to derive the Born rule? You cannot get
probabilities from the Schroedinger equation without some
additional assumptions./
Irrelevant for this discussion because EVERY quantum interpretation
assumes the Born Rule. I don't claim the MWI can solve every quantum
problem but it can solve one, the mystery of the observer, and it is
at least the equal of the other interpretations in explaining the
other mysteries. In other words the Many Worlds Interpretation is the
least bad idea anybody has come up with over the last century to
explain the weird nature of the quantum world.
The Born rule is a way of predicting probabilities. But how do these
probabilities apply in MWI. Do they apply to "observations"...but
there are no observations in MWI; observations are functionally
equivalent to wave-function collapse.
Brent
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/CAJPayv2upU_s_Mc5YAE9c7f1P0bzAzHMPiMzahaDvpXSHQBR9Q%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2upU_s_Mc5YAE9c7f1P0bzAzHMPiMzahaDvpXSHQBR9Q%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/c8568efd-0c8c-0fa8-1a4d-451268d50edc%40verizon.net.
