On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > 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? > > > Everett explains this entirely in his long text. The observer cannot feel > the split, nor observe it directly. But if QM (without collapse) is > correct, it is up to the Uni-World to provide explanation of how “nature” > makes some terms in the superposition disappear. > > Also, the MW is also a consequence of Descartes (mechanism) + > Turing-Church-Post-Kleene (i.e. the discovery of the computer … in the > elementary arithmetical reality). > > > > 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 > > > > Are you saying that the brain is not Turing emulable? Or what? All what I > say follows from this “intuitively”, but is also recovered by the > Platonician’s definition used in epistemology, when modelling “rational > belief” by “provability”, which is suggested by incompleteness. I do know > philosophers who are not convinced, by I don’t do philosophy, I prefer to > show a theory and its testability, and indeed I show exactly how to test > experimentally between Mechanism and (Weak) Materialism (physicalism), and > I show that quantum mechanics confirms Mechanism. > > I am not the guy who comes with a new theory. I am just showing that the > old and venerable Mechanist theory (in biology, psychology) is > experimentally testable, and that QM without-collapse confirms it, like I > show also that quantum logic confirms it. > > What is your take on the WM-duplication? > > Bruno > > PS if you could avoid the insults, and reason instead, that would be nice. > Leave the insults to those who have no arguments. >
As I see it, you have no arguments for MW except hand-waving. Do unicorns exist because they can exist? If there are genetic codes which create unicorns, do they exist, somewhere? Well maybe, given enough time. I'll grant you that. But the horse which loses a race in this world, doesn't imply another world in which it wins. Why should it? This is the basic flaw in this nonsense. There is absolutely no basis for believing in another world in which the horse wins; or if I get spin UP in this world, there must be another world in which another copy of me measures spin DN. You justify this by appeals to words and processes I don't fully understand, but they cannot lead to such nonsense. You're just making some critical errors in judgment which I could possibly locate if I wanted to get into your system. But since I know your conclusions are wrong, I am not motivated to do so. I can't explain collapse. But I'd rather to just say I don't know, than to embrace the nonsense of MW. Have you considered forgetting about wf's and just use Dirac's Matrix Mechanics instead of the SWE? In MM there are no waves so no collapse to worry about. Why focus on collapse of the wf when you can use MM? 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7d2bbd20-fcf6-4882-b9e3-c55322a9deb7%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7d2bbd20-fcf6-4882-b9e3-c55322a9deb7%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/4296ca3a-7521-4bdb-87cb-ed9a837c8289%40googlegroups.com.
