> On 15 Feb 2020, at 23:29, Alan Grayson <agrayson2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:32:47 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 12:01:20 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 10:55:30 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:42:13 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 10:22:14 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:19:23 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:04:31 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 5:05:26 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 5:32:55 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 2:55:48 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 7:14:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 3:55:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 9:48 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com <>> wrote:
> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:49:44 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:45 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com <>> wrote:
> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:34:59 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com <>> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
> On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I don't
>> understand his argument, no doubt my failing.
>
> I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule has to
> stuck in somehow. It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be derived from the
> linear evolution. Somehow a probability has to be introduced. Once there is
> a probability measure, then it can be argued via Gleason's theorem that
> the only consistent measure is the Born rule.
>
> Brent
>
> I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one CANNOT
> derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether one affirms MWI
> or not, the only thing one has to work with is an ensemble generated by
> measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive Born's rule using a
> one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so with many-worlds, since
> in operational terms -- what is observed -- the two interpretations are
> indistinguishable. AG
>
> That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can move on from
> there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of measurements are
> generated, and most will give different values for the probabilities. For the
> observers getting the alternative data, there is nothing to tell them that
> they are getting the wrong answer. MWI is incoherent.
>
> Bruce
>
> But won't the hypothetical observers in OTHER worlds get the same ensembles
> and thus the same distributions? AG
>
> No, The point of MWI is that other worlds get different data.
>
> Bruce
>
> On each individual trial of course, with the exception that some outcomes
> have the identical probability. But since the ensembles are generated by the
> same wf, I think they're identical. AG
>
>
> Think again. If there are N repetitions of the measurement with two possible
> outcomes, there are 2^N different sets of results.
> some sets have the same or similar frequencies, but others have very
> different frequencies. So many different ideas about the probabilities are
> obtained in different branches. The wave function does not affect this result.
>
> Bruce
>
> If there are only two possible outcomes in this world, won't the ensemble in
> the unobserved world, be the complement of the ensemble in this world? AG
>
> More like clones than complements.
>
> If there is a quantum coin flip (QCF) in world w, then there are two copies
> (branches) w-0 and w-1 with w-0 and w-1 being clones of w with the difference
> being the two possible outcomes. w no longer exists.
>
> This proceeds with N QCFs via branching to 2^N worlds w-x[1]...x[N], x[i] in
> {0,1}
>
> So with just 10000 QCFs there are now
>
> #python
> print(2**10000)
>
> 19950631168807583848837421626835850838234968318861924548520089498529438830221946631919961684036194597899331129423209124271556491349413781117593785932096323957855730046793794526765246551266059895520550086918193311542508608460618104685509074866089624888090489894838009253941633257850621568309473902556912388065225096643874441046759871626985453222868538161694315775629640762836880760732228535091641476183956381458969463899410840960536267821064621427333394036525565649530603142680234969400335934316651459297773279665775606172582031407994198179607378245683762280037302885487251900834464581454650557929601414833921615734588139257095379769119277800826957735674444123062018757836325502728323789270710373802866393031428133241401624195671690574061419654342324638801248856147305207431992259611796250130992860241708340807605932320161268492288496255841312844061536738951487114256315111089745514203313820202931640957596464756010405845841566072044962867016515061920631004186422275908670900574606417856951911456055068251250406007519842261898059237118054444788072906395242548339221982707404473162376760846613033778706039803413197133493654622700563169937455508241780972810983291314403571877524768509857276937926433221599399876886660808368837838027643282775172273657572744784112294389733810861607423253291974813120197604178281965697475898164531258434135959862784130128185406283476649088690521047580882615823961985770122407044330583075869039319604603404973156583208672105913300903752823415539745394397715257455290510212310947321610753474825740775273986348298498340756937955646638621874569499279016572103701364433135817214311791398222983845847334440270964182851005072927748364550578634501100852987812389473928699540834346158807043959118985815145779177143619698728131459483783202081474982171858011389071228250905826817436220577475921417653715687725614904582904992461028630081535583308130101987675856234343538955409175623400844887526162643568648833519463720377293240094456246923254350400678027273837755376406726898636241037491410966718557050759098100246789880178271925953381282421954028302759408448955014676668389697996886241636313376393903373455801407636741877711055384225739499110186468219696581651485130494222369947714763069155468217682876200362777257723781365331611196811280792669481887201298643660768551639860534602297871557517947385246369446923087894265948217008051120322365496288169035739121368338393591756418733850510970271613915439590991598154654417336311656936031122249937969999226781732358023111862644575299135758175008199839236284615249881088960232244362173771618086357015468484058622329792853875623486556440536962622018963571028812361567512543338303270029097668650568557157505516727518899194129711337690149916181315171544007728650573189557450920330185304847113818315407324053319038462084036421763703911550639789000742853672196280903477974533320468368795868580237952218629120080742819551317948157624448298518461509704888027274721574688131594750409732115080498190455803416826949787141316063210686391511681774304792596709376
>
> worlds.
>
> @philipthrift
>
> I interpret MW differently. If an observer gets a Head in this world on his
> first trial, another world is created where his clone get a Tail (since all
> possibilities are realized) On the second trial in this world, whatever is
> measured will be reversed in some another world (for the same reason as just
> stated), maybe the same world as the one created on the first trial; and so
> forth. AG
>
>
> There is no "this world".
>
> BS.
>
> "You" is in a world w (out of the infinity of worlds already existing), runs
> the quantum coin flipper - https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys4342
> <https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys4342> - and two worlds w-0 and w-1 of
> equal reality replace w. And there are now "You"-0 and "You"-1 and no more
> "You".
>
> @philipthrift
>
>
>
>
>
> You (not me) want a many-worlds reality. That's what you(s) get.
>
> @philipthrift
>
> BS2.
>
>
>
> What's incorrect?
>
> If you are not a Many Worlds believer (Mad-Dog Everettian to use Sean
> Carroll's term) already, ignore any papers or articles on Many Worlds. They
> are a waste of time (to spend in this - the only - world there is).
>
> @philipthrift
>
> I was having a discussion about the MWI, lately with Bruce, to clarify some
> issues. Doesn't mean I endorse the interpretation. Isn't that totally
> OBVIOUS? AG
>
>
>
>
> I was specifying exactly what MWI entails.
>
> One starts with MWI (like with any axioms) and then sees what follows from
> the MWI premise.
>
> MWI implies .... .
>
> Where did I go wrong in what I wrote in what MWI entails?
>
> @philipthrift
>
> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't mean THIS world
> doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the process of measurement. AG
In both Mechanism and Everett: “this world”, or "this body” is meaningless, or,
at best, very ambiguous. When doing metaphysics seriously, it is better to
assume as less as possible, and no theories at all can assume, or even define,
its own interpretation. Here logic + mechanism is far in advance compared to
physics, as it handles the problem of interpretation in the precise and
testable way. But mathematical logic is not well taught, if taught at all.
Bruno
>
> --
> 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
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bea81be6-c155-4d90-b4fc-01abe6395d55%40googlegroups.com
>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bea81be6-c155-4d90-b4fc-01abe6395d55%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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/83FF39E4-73FE-41CF-84BF-85F8AFD67349%40ulb.ac.be.
