> On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson <agrayson2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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?
Exists in which sense? They certainly are fictive object. Unicorn does not exist, because by definition they belong to fairy tales. I am not sure what you try to convey, or perhaps to insinuate. “Hand waning” is a bit of an insult. Please quote the sentences that you disagree with, or that you don’t understand. Or are you assimilating the true number relation with fiction? Then stop doing science, because those number relations are assumed in all theories that I know of. > If there are genetic codes which create unicorns, do they exist, somewhere? No. Unicorn does not exist by definition. Some horse have one corn, due to congenital malformation, but we don’t use them to suddenly claim that unicorn exist. It would be playing with word. > Well maybe, given enough time. I'll grant you that. That seems wiser, I mean to understand that the computation exists, once you agree with simple rules like x + 0 = x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), etc. > But the horse which loses a race in this world, doesn't imply another world > in which it wins. I agree. Horses are quasi-classical, so if they lose in “my” branche, they most certainly lose in almost all branches, except perhaps for a negligible subset. > 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; I agree. But there are reason to believe, when I send a particle on a plate with two holes, that there are as much histories where it passes through one hole than histories where it passes through the other. To be sure reality” is more complex, and those histories are relative indexical projection sequences. I prefer to avoid the term world, which is a technical term in logic, and a very general one. > or if I get spin UP in this world, there must be another world in which > another copy of me measures spin DN. Then you need to *add* the collapse postulate, which means you have to use different physics for the physicists and the particle. Also, you need to abandon Mechanism (and thus Darwin, biology, etc.). > You justify this by appeals to words and processes I don't fully understand, > but they cannot lead to such nonsense. I can understand that all this is shocking, but science is not wishful thinking, and we cannot make a simple theory (arithmetic) more complicated just to be OK with our metaphysical prejudices. > You're just making some critical errors in judgment which I could possibly > locate You are welcome. > if I wanted to get into your system. But since I know your conclusions are > wrong, You cannot be serious and say “I know that your conclusion are wrong”. You can say “I suspect your conclusion are wrong”, but even this, when said between scientist, is rare. You should better say “I suspect your conclusion are wrong for this or that reason”. > 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. Concerning Reality, the antic metaphysician knew already that nobody can say “we know …”. In science we give theories and means of verification. If the theory is refuted, we learn something. If not, doubt remains. > Have you considered forgetting about wf's and just use Dirac's Matrix > Mechanics I guess you mean Heisenberg matrix Mechanics. Yes, that does not change anything. Deutsch even prefer the Heisenberg matrices to illustrate the MWI. I use the SWE just to fix the things. The best formulation of QM is the one by Feynman. > instead of the SWE? In MM there are no waves so no collapse to worry about. I agree, and in Feynman there is no collapse either, but that’s is what explains the success of the MWI, notably in cosmology and quantum computations. The collapse has been invented to suppress the many worlds, which admittedly look even more weird if we take the SWE literally. The truth is closer to Feynman, which is truly more general, and clearly coherent with relativity (which contradict the SWE). That is even why some people, like Finkelstein, but also Einstein+Bohr, have been close to deduce relativity from quantum mechanics, something that I am studying (no personal opinion on that matter yet). > Why focus on collapse of the wf when you can use MM? AG If you accept MM, no problem. The many worlds comes there in the form of non nul diagonal term in the density matrixes. See the paper of Deutsch and Heyden to see the “many-world” interpretation of Heisenberg matrix mechanics. Non relativistic MM is completely equivalent with the SWE. Then Dirac and Feynman are just more exact formulation, taking into account the invariance for the Lorentz transformation. 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 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 > <mailto: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 > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4296ca3a-7521-4bdb-87cb-ed9a837c8289%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/A075EC2E-AE5D-4E08-8795-7F3A7BB3FB38%40ulb.ac.be.
