Obviously I'm blocked by AG for whatever reason, because that's what I've been telling him since and got no answer... I even bother to take the time to make a schematics (well a ugly one but still) :D
Le ven. 15 janv. 2021 à 07:36, Pierz Newton-John <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 4:01 pm, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 3:15:47 PM UTC-7, Pierz wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 11:07:59 PM UTC+11 [email protected] >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:26:42 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:42:43 PM UTC+11 [email protected] >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 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're talking like a politician. Does each observer in each world who >>>>> repeats said experiment record a seemingly random series of 1s and 0s or >>>>> not? Yes/no. It's not hard. Come on, you can do it now... >>>>> >>>> >>>> The answer is NO. In the spin experiment we're discussing, AG in this >>>> world measures an apparently random sequence of 0's and 1's. >>>> >>> >>> That's all we need. Remember, we are talking about *if MWI were true* here. >>> This is a thought experiment in which we are imagining how things would go >>> if the MWI picture were correct. So if you're admitting that, in such a >>> world, "AG in this world measures an apparently random sequence of 0's and >>> 1's", then you have all the preconditions for making probabilistic >>> predictions from it. >>> >>>> On each trial an imaginary other AG measures the complement of what AG >>>> in this world measured. >>>> >>> >>> They are not imaginary in MWI. I agree with this statement once you >>> remove the word "imaginary", which we can do ex-hypothesi. I'm not asking >>> you to believe in them here, only to advance an argument based of "if" MWI >>> were true. >>> >>>> Now since the trials are independent, different imaginary AGs always >>>> measure complements, but none measure more than ONE RESULT. >>>> >>> >>> Again, discarding the word "imaginary", I agree. Of course they don't >>> measure more than one outcome at the same trial. >>> >> >> *I meant, of course, that each other AG measures ONE value when created >> for some trial, but that's all this observer EVER observes because, unless >> you can offer an argument, he's disjoint, that is NOT related or connected >> any other "other AG". AG * >> > > Of course? I’m starting to think your picture of MWI is even more > misconceived than I imagined. Look, the MWI multiverse has the structure of > a tree, where each branch event is a different possible eigenvalue of some > observable. But - again ex hypothesi - all branches of the tree are > ontologically equal. They are all as real as one another. Each AG’s past at > a particular trial is the same as all the other AGs at that trial, though > each AG’s future diverges into further trees of different observed > realities. The equal status of all branches means that your idea that AG > observers on other branches are in some way different from the AG branch > you happen to be on in that they only ever have one observation is just > totally misconceived. To be blunt, you don’t get it. > >> >> As I previously indicated, these other AGs are disjoint from each other. >>>> >>> >>> What do you mean by "disjoint" exactly? Mathematically "disjoint" means >>> "having no elements in common". In the case of AG's who have measured >>> different results, initially their worlds have only this difference between >>> them, so in that sense they are not disjoint. If you mean they cannot >>> interact with one another, and inhabit diverging realities, then that is >>> only the case discounting interference, which we cannot do, because without >>> interference effects we dot have quantum mechanics. This word disjoint >>> seems to be central to your objection, but you need to define precisely >>> what is meant by it or we cannot assess the validity of your claims. >>> >>> The only way to remedy this situation is to add another postulate to >>>> your MWI. AG >>>> >>> >>> No idea what we need to remedy. I'll ask my question again, adjusting it >>> slightly. Does AG record a seemingly a random string of 1s and 0s in this >>> experiment if MWI describes reality? >>> >> >> *You seem to be assuming the other worlds created according to the MWI >> interact with other due to interference. Since these other worlds are never >> observed, I call them "imaginary"; and more important, no observations of >> interacting other worlds have ever been made, within QM or without QM. So >> the MWI is a huge stretch, at best. AG* >> > > Im not assuming it. It’s part of QM that wave functions interfere with > themselves. In MWI that translates to different “worlds” interfering. That > interference is extremely limited since it only occurs to the extent that > two branches can become identical again after having diverged. Nonetheless > it is the basis for proposed experimental proofs of MWI. One argument goes > that if we can make a quantum computer with a sufficiently large number of > qubits, we can prove the existence of other worlds because the other worlds > are the only place we can get all that information from. So, no, this is > not my assumption, it’s intrinsic to MWI. Again, if you don’t get that, you > don’t get MWI. You can’t expect your arguments to be taken seriously if you > don’t understand basics like this. > >> >>> >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >> Google Groups "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/xsl8cSDT4M8/unsubscribe >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >> [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9028f9b4-f111-4366-bb84-f4024d15202do%40googlegroups.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9028f9b4-f111-4366-bb84-f4024d15202do%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/CAArMS00gPngPUgNvQLBvjOAHN%2B0TVVkBC%2BtYSJSah_5PNSx9qQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAArMS00gPngPUgNvQLBvjOAHN%2B0TVVkBC%2BtYSJSah_5PNSx9qQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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/CAMW2kAo36pkQWpWOPwsnEffrTCArbruts5pZy1aALORqyhVmMA%40mail.gmail.com.
