On 2/21/2020 7:02 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 12:42:20 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
On 2/21/2020 5:40 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 3:48:56 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 21 Feb 2020, at 09:47, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 12:46:57 AM UTC-7, Philip
Thrift wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 2:59:05 PM UTC-6, Alan
Grayson wrote:
I think Bruce's position is that quantum processes
are inherently random and thus NOT computable.
Doesn't this conclusion, if true, totally disconfirm
Bruno's theory that the apparent physical universe
comes into being by computations of arithmetic
pre-existing principles or postulates? AG
William James thought belief in /*determinism*/ is a
form of *religious bondage*.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/james/
<https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/james/>
@philipthrift
But true randomness, as the opposite of determinism, could
be equated with UN-intelligibility. AG
To postulate it is irrational. OK. But once the randomness
admits a simple explanation, like with the self-duplicating
procedure, it becomes intelligible. Everett saves physics
from being un-intelligible, and indeed, leads to the
explanation by arithmetic and its internal meta-arithmetic (à
la Gödel).
Bruno
But, as I just pointed out in my previous message, the price paid
is way too high to avoid randomness; that is, self-duplication is
too silly to be believable. I prefer a possible middle ground;
that the universe isn't really stochastic (an inference from
QM), but pseudo random. AG
You should read Ruth Kastner's book on "The Transactional
Interpretation".
Brent
Thanks, but I am not an enthusiast of the TI, since it requires
pro-active processes for each particles going backward in time.
Kastner modifies that by hypothesizing a "possibility space" in which
the "hand-shake" takes place. But it still involves a "confirmation
wave" which extends back in time from the absorber (and forward in time
from the emitter).
I've asked this before, but haven't gotten a reply, or at least one I
can recall. What's wrong with just assuming that in a superposition of
states, the amplitudes give us the probability of each state in the
sum, and NOT that the system is in all states simultaneously?
Think of applying that to a silver atom in an SG experiment. It is in
an UP spin state (with probability 1.0) but it's also in LEFT spin state
with probability 0.5 and a RIGHT spin state with probability 0.5. So
it's total probability is 2.0.
Doesn't this interpretation resolves most, or all of the alleged
paradoxes of QM? TIA, AG
No. The problem arises when there's a measurement and the problem has
three parts:
1. What basis will the result be in, i.e. why is the cat |alive> or
|dead> and never 0.7|alive>+0.3|dead> ?
2. When is the measurement process complete? The problem of Wigner's
friend.
3. Why does the Born rule hold?
I think Zurek's envariance based quantum Darwinism is closest to have a
complete solution; but it still seems to have multiple worlds.
Brent
--
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/b66b0bba-4052-5d2c-3ad7-63c8dcadb853%40verizon.net.
