Le dim. 17 janv. 2021 à 12:53, Pierz Newton-John <[email protected]> a écrit :
> > > On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 10:15 pm, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 9:55:50 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 3:10 pm, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 7:28:14 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 3:49 am, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> *What would be the mechanism or process for other worlds to interact >>>>>> with each other, that is to interfere with each other? This is the >>>>>> gorilla >>>>>> in the room that many MWI enthusiasts ignore; awesome speculation with >>>>>> zero >>>>>> grounding in empirical evidence. Something definitely awry with this pov. >>>>>> AG* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I’m not an “enthusiast”. It’s a physical theory not a football team. >>>>> If anything I dislike the idea of all those alternative variants of me and >>>>> my life. If MWI is disproved I’ll be perfectly happy. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *It can't be disproved because it makes no verifiable predictions! AG* >>>> >>>> >>>>> It’s just that it unfortunately makes more sense in my assessment than >>>>> any other alternative, so I entertain it as the most likely explanation >>>>> for >>>>> the observed data. To say it has zero grounding in empirical data is >>>>> simply >>>>> false - it’s the theory that simply takes the empirical data to its >>>>> logical conclusion without adding a collapse postulate. The wave function >>>>> is the whole thing. Asking what the mechanism is for worlds to interfere >>>>> with one another is the same as asking what the mechanism is for the >>>>> Schrödinger wave function to interfere with itself. In the dual slit >>>>> experiment it’s an observed fact. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *The SE, when solved, give us the WF, which can be decomposed into a >>>> superposition of eigenstates in some appropriate vector space. But this >>>> superposition is not unique. So in what sense does the SE give us "an >>>> observed fact"? In fact, with numerous distinct possible superpositions, >>>> the worlds of the MWI seem ill-defined. AG* >>>> >>> >>> I have wondered myself whether basis selection is a problem for MWI. I’m >>> less sure now that it is. Environmental einselection may resolve the basis >>> problem. We set up an experimental apparatus to select some basis, but >>> that’s just a special case of what happens naturally, whereby the >>> characteristics of the environment select the basis. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> It makes no sense for it to behave that way if we stick to the old >>>>> view of matter as little hard balls, but there you go. When we talk of >>>>> “worlds”, it just refers to a ramifying quantum state, and it is in the >>>>> nature of quantum states to interfere with themselves per the dual slit >>>>> experiment, even if they become large and complex. Interference ceases >>>>> when >>>>> two branches of the universal quantum state diverge far enough that they >>>>> completely decohere. When you say “what is the mechanism?” that really >>>>> means “what is the mathematical description?” in physics. Anything else is >>>>> just imprecise circumlocution like the word “world” in this context. So >>>>> the >>>>> mechanism for interference is the Schrödinger equation, which predicts >>>>> such >>>>> interference. MWI adds precisely nothing to that mathematical description. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *The problem, of course, is that the MWI offers no concept of the >>>> process of interference among OTHER worlds, so it's no surprise that it >>>> adds nothing to the mathematical description. AG (More at end of this >>>> confusing file.)* >>>> >>> >>> there you go with “of course” again as if your argument were self >>> evident. Theres no distinction between worlds (this or other) so of course >>> there is interference on and among the other branches too. I don’t know >>> what you’re talking about. >>> >> >> *I strongly disagree. IMO, it is self-evident. My response is at end of >> this file. AG * >> >>> >>>> *The ontological status of those OTHER worlds is problem, but that's >>>> not exactly what I am saying. Rather, I am saying is that the MW hypothesis >>>> leads nowhere. It has no predictive value that I can discern. It's just a >>>> form of possibly consistent ideology. Compare it to Einstein's postulate of >>>> the invariance of the SoL. It's really quite paradoxical when you think >>>> about; that the SoL does not depend on the motion of source or recipient. >>>> But from it we get the LT and a host of verifiable predictions. SR is a >>>> scientific theory since it can be disproven. I don't see that anything >>>> verifiable is predicted by the MWI. As such, it shouldn't be regarded as a >>>> scientific theory. It can't be so considered since it offer no path for >>>> being disproven. AG * >>>> >>> >>> That is not what you said in your initial argument at all. >>> >> >> * It was about Born's rule failing in the MWI because the OTHER worlds >> don't interact. AG* >> >> >>> But to run with it, falsifiability is definitely a problem for MWI, but >>> it’s not as straightforward as you make out. There are proposals for >>> falsifying it but they are technically too difficult to carry out at the >>> moment. Falsifiability is not an intrinsic property of a theory but a >>> property of the theory in relation to the current state of knowledge and >>> technology. Popper was not the last word in the Philosophy of Science. Paul >>> Feyerabend has pointed out many cases where the process of scientific >>> progress did not proceed according to a Popperian model at all. String >>> theory also suffers from falsifiability problems but the advance of theory >>> and technique may well (I presume will eventually) resolve the question of >>> its validity. The world is the way it is regardless of whether or not we >>> can prove it to be that way, and what we can prove or disprove is >>> constantly evolving. >>> >> >> *I've never encountered a Many World advocate who indicated a possible >> prediction of the interpretation. Can you give one example? But I agree >> that theories can exist where some degree of verification of predictions is >> presently beyond our technical capabilities, and that could change in the >> future. AG* >> >>> >>>>> “There’s no ensemble from which to derive probabilities because all >>>>> the other observers are purely imaginary” is thus a circular argument. >>>>> That >>>>> is my point. Please try to get over your abhorrence for MWI long enough to >>>>> get it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *That might be a circular argument, but **I never made it. Rather, I >>>> claimed there is no interaction among the OTHER worlds, so EACH world >>>> records only ONE measurement. Consequently, no OTHER world records an >>>> ensemble and Born's rule fails in those worlds. AG * >>>> >>> >> >>> Which still makes zero sense to me. Born’s rule can’t fail in those >>> OTHER worlds unless it fails as well in this one because no world is >>> privileged. To say otherwise is to add your own weird ingredient to MWI. >>> >> >> *IMO, this is where you've fallen into the delusion. Suppose 10 horses >> are in a race and you bet on one to be the winner. When the race finishes, >> at that very moment presumably, 9 additional worlds are created according >> to the MWI, where each of the losers in the race you witnessed, is the >> winner. These worlds are surely NOT equally privileged. 9 of them came into >> existence because the race was run in what I will call THIS world. It's the >> world where you will win or lose your bet. The other worlds are derivative, >> having been derived from the race and world in which you placed your bet. >> AG* >> >>> > Are you kidding? “At that very moment presumably 9 additional worlds are > created...” it’s so wrong I don’t even know how to start correcting it. > That is nothing like what MWI says. But I can see I’m not going to get > anywhere with trying to explain this to you when so many before have > failed, so I’ll bow out now. > Il n'y a pas pire sourd que celui qui ne veut pas entendre... there is none so deaf as those who will not hear >>>> -- >> 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/e0cfa853-2076-48fc-93fc-1b8076a7244cn%40googlegroups.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e0cfa853-2076-48fc-93fc-1b8076a7244cn%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/CAArMS014TWnA-V9ZMEPiJOM47zd6%2BXf03yfrphi5xZnj0cC0GQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAArMS014TWnA-V9ZMEPiJOM47zd6%2BXf03yfrphi5xZnj0cC0GQ%40mail.gmail.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/CAMW2kApjmSjYO6JfY1eFDkbHzvHPCMFx%2B%3DabWshZKNobV%2BKqUg%40mail.gmail.com.
