On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 9:44:07 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 2/21/2020 8:19 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 8:28:32 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> 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/ >>>>> >>>>> @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. >> > > *I was taught that the sum of probabilities in any basis must be 1.0. I > never heard of adding up probabilities in more than one basis. AG * > > That's the point. P=2.0 makes no sense. Yet those two states are > mathematically the same in QM. How are you going to get P(UP)=1.0 by > summing over states of LEFT and RIGHT? >
*If you sum over either representation, you get 1.0. I don't see any problem. AG* > > >> 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> ? >> > > *The cat inherits the probabilities of the radioactive source, which I > suppose is .5 for decayed and undecayed. AG * > > Then why isn't it in a state 0.707|alive>+0.707|dead>? > *Where did .5 for |alive> and |dead> states come from? AG * > >> 2. When is the measurement process complete? The problem of Wigner's >> friend. >> >> 3. Why does the Born rule hold? >> > > *Why does any rule hold? Why, for example, are conjugate observables > anti-commutative? AG * > > See Vic's "Comprehensible Cosmos" appendix on QM. > *I have it. I'll look. AG * > > Brent > > >> 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/73d7edfa-1213-45e3-bd54-5ba3d37d0886%40googlegroups.com.
