On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 5:26:50 AM UTC-7 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > On 3 Jan 2021, at 03:43, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Saturday, January 2, 2021 at 2:17:12 AM UTC-7 [email protected] wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 5:35 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Assuming that Many Worlds is true and the multiverse is completely >>>> determined by Schrodinger's equation and there are therefore an >>>> astronomically large number (perhaps an infinite number) of Bruce Kelletts >>>> with microscopic or submicroscopic differences between them, and those >>>> Bruce Kelletts were observing a stream of photons polarized at angle X hit >>>> a polarizing filter set to angle X+Y; would any one of those Bruce >>>> Kelletts >>>> be able to predict with certainty that Bruce Kellett would or would not >>>> observe the photon pass through that filter? No. Would Bruce Kellett have >>>> to resort to probability? Yes. How would Bruce Kellett calculate the >>>> probability? If Bruce Kellett wanted to avoid logical self contradictions >>>> there is only one method Bruce Kellett could use, the Born Rule. >>> >>> >>> *> I don't think that's quite true. Suppose for example BK decided to >>> predict that the polarization with the highest value of |psi|^2 is the one >>> that would pass thru. He wouldn't run into any logical contradiction >>> because he's not interpreting it as probability,* >>> >> >> If the BKs are Interpreting that as a certainty and not a probability >> then the BKs wouldn't run into a logical contradiction but they would run >> into an empirical one because that wouldn't match experimental observation. >> It's entirely possible that a BK's prediction would fail and that the high >> |psi|^2 photon would NOT make it through (unless the value happened to be >> exactly 1), and even if the prediction turned out to be correct scientific >> experiments must be repeatable and when the BKs conduct it over and over >> again all the BKs will soon find out that the predictions tend to be >> correct |psi|^2 of the time. >> >> > *he wouldn't run into an empirical contradiction unless he assumed >>> the actual process was producing a probability distribution and so he >>> needed to predict a distribution and not just a value. * >>> >> >> But the BKs didn't assume it was a probability distribution, they >> discovered it was. If the BKs assumed the |psi|^2 value was just a number >> and not a probability and had no physical significance then the BKs would >> soon discover that the assumption was wrong >> >> >>> *> Once you know that you need a probability distribution from the wave >>> function...then Born's rule is the only choice. * >>> >> >> Yes. >> >> >>> >>> * > But it's the step from the wave-function and "everything happens" to >>> a probability distribution where MWI leaves a gap.* >>> >> >> I don't see the gap. If Many Worlds was true then what would the Brent >> Meekers interpret |psi|^2 to mean? If it's just a number and means >> nothing then solving Schrodinger's equation would be a waste of time >> because that equation would also mean nothing, it should be ignored; but >> then we wouldn't have transistors or lasers or about 6.02*10^23 other >> things in modern life. >> > > The gap Brent refers to has nothing to do with Schrodinger's equation, as > I previously explained. Every trial in an experiment can be interpreted as > a separate horse race, creating its own set of worlds where each possible > occurrence is allegedly measured. But on subsequent trials, the MWI gives > no guarantee that the same set of worlds is created. IOW, without another > postulate appended to the MWI, each world is associated with exactly ONE > measurement. No ensembles in these worlds; hence, the necessary condition > for a probability doesn't exist. AG. > > > The born rule must be applied, and it concerns the relative accessible > histories. It is better to avoid the term “world” which is hard to define. > Accessible to who, or to what? AG > > Bruno > > > > >> John K Clark See my new list at Extropolis >> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> >> >> > > -- > > 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/fa4b28ff-6606-4e06-9c22-d758906538d9n%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fa4b28ff-6606-4e06-9c22-d758906538d9n%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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5af52094-c6bf-4e59-aabf-bf5823cb9b65n%40googlegroups.com.
