On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 10:19:59 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 12:09:06 PM UTC+11 [email protected] > wrote: > >> On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 3:56:51 PM UTC-7 [email protected] wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 5:21 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> *> The MWI doesn't guarantee that these subsequent measurements, for >>>> subsequent horse races say, are occurring in the SAME OTHER worlds as >>>> trials progress, to get ensembles in those OTHER worlds. * >>> >>> >>> I don't know what you mean by "SAME OTHER worlds", the same as what? In >>> one world Alan Grayson remembers having seen the electron go left, in >>> another world Alan Grayson remembers having seen the electron go right, >>> other than that the two worlds are absolutely identical, so which one was >>> the "SAME OTHER world"? >>> >>> > You seem to avoid the fact that no where does the MWI guarantee [...] >>> >>> >>> Quantum mechanics is not in the guarantee business, it deals with >>> probability. >>> >>> *> I don't think you understand my point, which isn't complicated. * >>> >>> >>> Yes, your point is very simple indeed, but the word simple can have 2 >>> meanings, one of them is complementary and the other not so much. >>> >> >> In first trial, the MWI postulates other worlds comes into existence. >> Same other worlds in second trial? Same other worlds in third trial, etc? >> Where does the MWI assert these other worlds are the SAME other worlds? >> Unless it does, you only have ONE measurement in each of these worlds. No >> probability exists in these other worlds since no ensemble of measurements >> exist in these other world. AG >> > > You grossly misunderstand MWI. There are no "same other" worlds. The > worlds that arise at each trial are different in precisely one way and one > way only: the eigenvalue recorded for the experiment. The different > eigenvalues will then give rise to a "wave of differentiations" as the > consequences of that singular difference ramifies, causing the different > worlds generated by the original experimental difference to multiply. > "World" really means a unique configuration of the universal wave function, > so two worlds at different trials can't possibly be the "same world", and > yes, there is only one measurement in each. > This is what I have been saying all along! AG > That is precisely the stipulation of MWI. If we have a quantum experiment > with two eigenvalues 1 and 0, and each is equally likely per the Born rule, > then the MWI interpretation is that - effectively - two worlds are created. > You, the experimenter, end up in both, each version knowing nothing about > the other. > Again, what I have been saying all along! AG > So, in the "objective world" (the view from outside the whole wave > function as it were), no probability is involved. But if you repeat this > experiment many times, each version of you will record an apparently random > sequence of 1s and 0s. Your best prediction of what happens in the next > experiment is that it's a 50/50 toss up between 1 and 0. Objectively > there's no randomness, subjectively it appears that way. > Here's where you go astray. AG > > >> >> >>> 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/e59ce8c0-6886-4af9-b516-4132a6ca94acn%40googlegroups.com.
