On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 4:52:16 AM UTC-7 [email protected] wrote:
> IMO the main quantum postulate is the following. '*Real experiments have > results. Unperformed experiments have none*.' (But we can create > different postulates, and different theories. Only future experiments will > tell ...) > I think we're in agreement. IMO, those other AGs aren't really measuring anything. They're imaginary constructs, "forced" to "measure" the complement of whatever this world AG measures. AG > > Il 14/01/2021 04:42 Alan Grayson <[email protected]> ha scritto: > > > > > On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 8:29:16 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > > On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 1:23:11 PM UTC+11 [email protected] > wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 4:33:20 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 5:50:29 PM UTC+11 [email protected] > wrote: > > 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 > > No it isn't. I agree you have been saying there is only one measurement > outcome in each world. However this business about "same other worlds" > betrays your lack of comprehension. It's not that MWI "doesn't guarantee" > that the the worlds at each trial are the same world. It's that the whole > notion of "same other worlds" means nothing in this context and has no > bearing on anything. A bit like arguing when we add 1 and 1 twice whether > we are guaranteed that the ones we add each time are the "SAME ones" at > each addition. If mathematics can't guarantee that then how can we be sure > the answer is the same? Basically the only answer to that is "WTF?" > > > 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 > > If you get that, then the next bit follows. > > > 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 > > > So you say! Without justifying yourself in any way. You *seem* to be > saying that probability can't describe QM experiments because in each world > there is only one outcome and therefore no "ensemble" of outcomes from > which a probability can be derived. That is totally wrong-headed. There are > two "ensembles": the ensemble of different multiverse branches at each > experiment, and the ensemble of each experimenter's prior measurements, and > those are enough to derive the appearance of randomness and to justify a > probabilistic description despite the objective lack of randomness. If you > agree with "what you have been saying all along", then you must agree that > every experimenter in every world in an MWI multiverse will see a record of > an apparently random sequence of 1s and 0s in the described experiment. > Right? And if not why not? > > > IMO, since the trials are independent, the other observers are disjoint > from each other and each records only one measurement. So the only observer > who sees an ensemble is the observer in THIS world. To get an ensemble of > outcomes in those other worlds, and hence a probability, you need to appeal > to a non-existent observer, also called the Bird's Eye observer. AG > > > Respectfully, you did not answer my question. Do you agree or not that > every experimenter in every branch of the multiverse who records a series > of experiments as described in my scenario will record a *seemingly* > random string of 1s and 0s? If you do, that's really all that's required. > Abstract debates about "ensembles required to get a probability" are moot. > If the world is as described by MWI, the appearance of probability is an > outcome, and probability is the best possible description of how quantum > experiments turn out from any real observer's POV (as opposed to the Bird's > Eye observer). If you disagree that experimenters will get a seemingly > random string of 1s and 0s, then you'll need to explain why you think that. > > > I did answer your question. Since the trials are independent, a NEW OTHER > WORLD observer is created on each THIS WORLD trial. So the other observers > see ONE outcome each. No reason to assume otherwise. You need another > postulate for this to work. AG > > > -- > > 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/204901cc-7aa3-4118-8ea9-3e69ffe76778n%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/204901cc-7aa3-4118-8ea9-3e69ffe76778n%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/b11dcbfa-00e7-44eb-afbe-f9a6e59c4816n%40googlegroups.com.
