On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 11:56:57 PM UTC-6, smitra wrote: > > On 29-11-2019 01:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 1:45 AM Lawrence Crowell > > <goldenfield...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > > > >> On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 7:55:14 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: > >> > >>> But Sean Carroll says there are multiple Sean Carrolls that come > >>> into being as the MWI branches, so whatever charge Sean Carroll > >>> now has is "replicated" in World x and World y, and then the > >>> multiple Sean Carrolls go do their own things independently. > >>> > >>> That's exactly what he says happens. > >>> > >>> @philipthrift > >> > >> Really there are no duplicate Carroll's or Crowell's or anyone else. > >> There are amplitudes for such with a distribution given by a > >> decoherent set, and phenomenologically any of these in such a branch > >> "renormalize" the probabilities to one. It is not so much that I > >> branch and am duplicated, but that I am also existent in other > >> branches. > > > > That is sheer sophistry. If energy, charge, and other conserved > > quantities, are conserved in each branch, and the number of branches > > increases exponentially as it does in MWI, then the total amount of > > these quantities also increases, and you, and everything else, is > > duplicated in every branch. If you treat branch weights as > > probabilities, and then calculate an expectation value over branches, > > then that expectation value is constant. But that is just a > > single-world theory. > > > > Bruce > > That total amount has no physical meaning. Different branches are > analogous to different moments in time in a single universe setting in > the block universe view. All that happens in the MWI is that instead of > one successor universe you have multiple ones. But it's not that God is > continuously destroying universes and creating new universes using the > energy of the old universe. If it were like that then God would not be > able to implement the MWI, but this is not how it works. All the future > and past states are equally real and time evolution is just an > information conserving mapping. > > Saibal >
A summation of energy or any other quantum number can make sense in a local frame. In particular if this local frame can be considered, at least to some reasonable degree of approximation, as a closed system then it is reasonable to be concerned over this sum. The thing people are concerned about is the resetting of probability for a particular branch, which is a ψ-ontological procedure similar to such a resetting of probability in the ψ-epistemological method of the collapse. LC -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cba0c91f-1fb3-4979-89d9-e7f842c94b3e%40googlegroups.com.
