On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:54, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> a écrit : > >> >> >> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 2:22:46 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:15, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a >>> écrit : >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 1:17:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 16:43, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a >>>>> écrit : >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 6:59:11 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson <agrays...@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> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *This is where the proverbial rubber hits the road. I can assume a >>>>>> primary physical world where observations yield those arithmetic rules. >>>>>> As >>>>>> a rudimentary result, there is only one world, this world. Also, you >>>>>> speak >>>>>> of computations, but where is the computer doing the computations? MW is >>>>>> like what Nietzsche said of Christianity; Rococo of the Mind. AG * >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So you accept a physical reality emerging from nothing, located >>>>> nowhere (as if it has any meaning)... but not a computation... strange >>>>> how >>>>> one can be blinded by his own prejudice. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *Speaking of prejudices, tell me where and what is the computer doing >>>> the computation? AG* >>>> >>>
> The same place and thing that magically support the physical reality. >>> >> >> *You made the claim that computations exist. So please tell me what is >> doing the computations and where it is located. Hand-waving not acceptable. >> AG * >> > > You made the claim that physical reality exists ontologically... Can you > back it up ? Hand-waving not acceptable > *I never used the word or concept "ontological". We observe the world. You claim Many Worlds based on "computations". It's YOUR claim! What is doing the computations and where is it located? If you can't answer this question, your model should not be taken seriously. OTOH, I leave the answer open. I'm willing to acknowledge that I don't know how our universe is "supported", or if it needs to be supported. You claim to have the answer. But you're like the King who has no clothes. 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/482eaa9d-18c9-4e8a-bcdd-bbd4a768cad0%40googlegroups.com.
