I should have been more explicit; since the trials are independent, the other worlds implied by the MWI for any particular trial, are unrelated to the other worlds created for any OTHER particular trial. Thus, each other world has an ensemble with one element, insufficient for the existence of probabilities. AG
On Wednesday, January 6, 2021 at 4:41:57 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > On Wednesday, January 6, 2021 at 3:33:52 AM UTC-7 [email protected] > wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 10:05 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> One world contains an Alan Grayson that sees the electron go left, >>>> another world is absolutely identical in every way except that it contains >>>> a Alan Grayson that sees the electron go right. So you tell me, which of >>>> those 2 worlds is "THIS WORLD"? >>>> >>> >>> *> It's the world where a living being can observe the trials being >>> measured. The other world is in your imagination (if you believe in the >>> MWI). AG * >>> >> >> From that response I take it you have abandoned your attempt to poke logical >> holes in the Many Worlds Interpretation and instead have resorted to a >> pure emotional appeal; namely that there must be a fundamental law of >> physics that says anything Alan Grayson finds to be odd cannot exist, >> and Alan Grayson finds many Worlds to be odd. Personally I find Many >> Worlds to be odd too, although it's the least odd of all the quantum >> interpretations, however I don't think nature cares very much if you or I >> approve of it or not. From experimentation it's clear to me that if Many >> Worlds is not true then something even stranger is. >> > > I have no idea whatsoever, how you reached your conclusions above. There > are things called laboratories, where physicists conduct experiments, some > of which are quantum experiments with probabilistic outcomes. The world in > which such things exist, I call THIS world. Worlds postulated to exist > based on the claim that any possible measurement, must be a realized > measurement in another world, I call OTHER worlds. Those OTHER worlds are > imagined to exist based on the MWI. These are simple facts. I am not making > any emotional appeals to anything. The possible oddness of the Cosmos is > not affirmed or denied here. I agree the Cosmos might be odd, possibly very > odd, but this has nothing to do with our discussion. The core of my > argument is that since the trial outcomes in quantum experiments are > independent of one another, there's no reason to claim that each of the > OTHER worlds accumulates ensembles, as an ensemble is created in THIS > world. Without ensembles in those OTHER worlds, the MWI fails to affirm the > existence of probability in any of those OTHER worlds. AG > >> >> See my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> >> >> John K Clark >> >> >> -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/55a83617-d49c-403c-a679-02025441ef6fn%40googlegroups.com.
