On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's nice. >>>>> >>>>> @philipthrift >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement is done in >>>> this world, it splits into two worlds, each with one of the possible >>>> measurements. I see only one world being created, with this world >>>> remaining >>>> intact, and then comes the second measurement, with its opposite occurring >>>> in another world, or perhaps in the same world created by the first >>>> measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds created is N, or less. >>>> Isn't this what the MWI means? AG >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible outcomes: O1 >>> and O2. >>> There are not two measurements M1 and M2. >>> >>> Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not assigned "this" >>> and the other assigned "that", They have equal status in MWI reality. One >>> is not privileged over the other in any way. >>> >>> @philipthrift >>> >> >> This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I wrote, which is >> pretty simple. AG >> > > > What you wrote has* nothing to do with MWI*. You created something > different from MWI (in the Carroll sense). > But's OK to have your own interpretation. > > It's *your own "interpretation"*, not MWI. Publish it and call it > something else. > > @philipthrift >
I suppose I'm just following Tegmark; everything that CAN happen, MUST happen. So, when an observer measures UP (or DN) in THIS world, another world comes into existence wherein an observer MUST measure DN (or UP). >From this I get N or less worlds for N trials where the results of measurements are binary, such as spin. Maybe not precisely MWI, but definitely less stupid -- but still egregiously stupid. How could MWI be remotely correctly if it alleges THIS world splits when it's never observed? But now you say that for Everett there's no such thing as THIS world. All this stuff, including Bruno's BS, is so profoundly dumb, I can't believe we're even discussing it! Was it Brent on another thread who claimed many physicists have become cultists? Whoever made that claim qualifies for sanity. AG -- 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/7d2bbd20-fcf6-4882-b9e3-c55322a9deb7%40googlegroups.com.
