You're an intellectual coward. Obviously, a horse race isn't a quantum process, but the example is pregnant with meaning. AG
On Sunday, January 17, 2021 at 5:17:58 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > 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/ba04d488-f3ac-430f-bea2-2b97b1e306d4n%40googlegroups.com.
