On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 10:23 pm, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 1:34:29 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 6:29 pm, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 10:08:21 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 4:01 pm, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 11:46:35 AM UTC-7 [email protected] >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 12:54 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> *> So contrary to some who think I know zilch about the MWI, I DO >>>>>>> know what world I am in ! It's the world in which I made my bet, and >>>>>>> won or >>>>>>> lost.* >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Assuming 30 seconds elapsed between the time you made your bet and >>>>>> the time you won or lost your bet, which of those 30 * (5.39 × 10^44) >>>>>> splits that occurred during that time interval is the one that >>>>>> "you" are in? And even if by some miracle "you" could tell me which one >>>>>> "you" are in "now" that still leaves open the question of if "you" are >>>>>> still in that one "now". And if "you" weren't in "that one" how could >>>>>> "you" >>>>>> tell the difference? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> *> All other ALLEGED world are DERIVATIVE from this one, and I have >>>>>>> zero contact* >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You keep saying that over and over again, but no matter how many >>>>>> times you say it that won't make it true. Every world that exists >>>>>> has had contact with each other in the past, they I'll have a common >>>>>> ancestor, they just won't have any contact in the future. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> How is this implied by the SWE? Isn't this an additional postulate of >>>>> your interpretation? AG >>>>> >>>> >>>> It is absolutely implied. Not merely implied. It is quite explicitly >>>> the case. Ask literally anyone who understands MWI and they’ll tell you >>>> that. >>>> >>> >>> *You might be right. But all I know about the wf is that it can be >>> decomposed into eigenstates of the observed operator, each multiplied by a >>> complex parameter whose magnitude squared yields the probability of >>> occurrence, aka Born's rule. Please inform us exactly how the SWE, which >>> yields the wf, tell us what Many Worlder's claim? TY, AG* >>> >> >> Sorry, I meant it is explicitly the case in MWI. Obviously, the >> Schrödinger equation has been subject to many interpretations, and MWI is >> only one of them. Its appeal lies in the fact that it does not add anything >> to the wave equation. >> > > *So JC IS mistaken! It IS an additional postulate, and the SWE tells us > nothing about WHEN the measurement occurs. AG* > I frequently disagree with JC, but not on this. The SWE gives us the time evolution function for a quantum state. Clearly that does not include information about when a “measurement” (read: interaction with another physical system) occurs. It is the mathematical formulation of an unperturbed quantum system’s evolution. If an interaction occurs, that can be modeled in terms of entanglement and the size of the Hilbert space representing the system grows enormously but continues to evolve in a unitary fashion. The postulate of MWI is that “measurement” does not cause any non unitary change to occur that collapses the state to a single value but that the wave equation describes the entire state of the system and the appearance of a collapse is the result of parts of the quantum state decohering from one another. That decoherence is very difficult to reverse, hence the appearance of strict separation between “worlds”, but theoretical it is possible to undo, and this is the basis of proposed empirical tests of MWI. > > It dispenses with the collapse postulate which was always an ad hoc >> addition to the theory - an inelegant kludge to get from the polyvalent >> wave function to a single valued observation. >> > > *I agree it seems like a kluge, but collapse has an inherent mathematical > justification. The wf evolves into a delta function at measurement time, > with all UN-measured possibilities converging to zero, and the measured > event's probability converging to unity. Delta functions are used in many > instances in physics, so not it's not totally ad hoc and unreasonable to > apply it to QM. Here the delta function does in fact describe what is > observed, not a minor point! OTOH, the MWI demands huge, likely infinite > quantities of energy in the creation of other worlds, yet it offers no > clue, or model, or even conjecture how that might occur. Over the years > I've made this point to many MWI advocates, but the issue seems to have > zero impact on their loyalty to this improbable interpretation. It's always > swept under the rug, the huge gorilla I've referred to, so great is their > belief in this interpretation. * > I did not sweep it under the rug. I explained why conservation of energy is not applicable in this scenario if you read my whole reply. It seems to have had “zero impact” however! I do not, as I stated before, “barrack for” MWI. I don’t have any loyalty to it and was even relieved a bit when Bruce gave me some reason to doubt it. Now that I understand the issues better though, I’m afraid I’m more persuaded that MWI is likely to be the best explanation of what’s going on in quantum physics. *So for me this thought pattern can fairly be described as "Trump physics" > which destroys clear thinking. Nevertheless, I thank you for a polite > response. AG* > > I’m sure you’re familiar with the arguments why collapse is nasty. As >> Leonard Susskind says, it’s hard to understand what “fundamental >> randomness” even means. It is impossible to define it except on the basis >> of repeated trials - an ensemble as you say - and it’s far from clear how >> that explains anything. That’s apart from Wigner’s friend etc. >> >> So IF you run with that idea, the picture is as JC paints it: there are >> trillions upon trillions of starting conditions for your horse race, each >> of which branches into trillions upon trillions of microscopically varying >> versions of that race, resulting in an uncountably enormous number of >> physical races, with a slightly different AG in each. Of course there is >> no single “this” world in this picture. Each one is “this” world to its >> inhabitants. It’s unclear - at least to me - that given the starting point >> of a single world (branch) at the start of the race - that MWI implies that >> all horses will win in some branch from that starting point. I suppose if >> the wave function can take infinitesimal values that it does imply that. >> However there will be many different starting points to the same race, >> resulting from earlier multiverse branches, so that certainly will >> guarantee that all horses win in some world. >> >> As for energy conservation, that does not apply. Conservation of energy >> results from commutation of an operator with the Hamiltonian (energy) >> operator. Obviously any operator commutes with itself, so energy is >> preserved over time evolution. However it does not make sense >> mathematically to apply that to different branches of the evolving wave >> function. There’s no such conservation restriction. Hence no gorilla, sorry. >> >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> * > Also, since in the race there are exactly 10 possible winners,* >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> No, there are *NOT* exactly 10 winners! There are an astronomical >>>>>> number to an astronomical power number horses that won that race with >>>>>> only >>>>>> a submicroscopic difference between them, and there are also an >>>>>> astronomical number to an astronomical power number of Alan Graysons that >>>>>> won his bet on that race. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So instead of all possible outcomes being measured in some other >>>>> world, we get a huge, possibly infinite occurrences of all possibilities >>>>> being measured. I can regard this as the extra postulate I have been >>>>> asking >>>>> about. It must be additional since it doesn't seem implied by SWE. AG >>>>> >>>> >>>> Again, JC is absolutely correct, and if you don’t understand that, >>>> you’ve never even begun to grasp MWI. It is certainly not an additional >>>> postulate. It was what I meant when I said I did not know how to begin to >>>> correct your horse race story. The multiverse is absolutely unimaginably >>>> vast. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> *> Why not avoid all this confusion and creation of worlds with zero >>>>>>> energy sources, and accept that the wf collapses,* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Because Schrodinger's Equation says nothing about the wave function >>>>>> collapsing and nobody, except for Many Worlds, seems to be able to >>>>>> come up with consistent coherent rules to tell us exactly when it >>>>>> collapses and when it does not. And if you will not be happy until >>>>>> there is an explanation for quantum mechanics that is not confusing and >>>>>> weird then I'm afraid you're destined to be unhappy. G >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You haven't answered my question; why is this interpretation more >>>>> REASONABLE or more CONSISTENT WITH OCCAM'S RAZOR compared to the collapse >>>>> hypothesis since gives it gives no clue whatever about the energy sources >>>>> required to create these other worlds? It seems to create hugely more >>>>> problems than it solves. AG >>>>> >>>>> Also, how does this interpretation tell us exactly WHEN the SWE >>>>> collapses since that occurs when the observer chooses to make the >>>>> measurement? Nothing to do with the SWE. All to do with the observer's >>>>> behavior or choice. AG >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> John K Clark >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>> 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/34437856-7eb0-49d2-a390-2599970c7420n%40googlegroups.com >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/34437856-7eb0-49d2-a390-2599970c7420n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>> -- >>> 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/163a32e1-ac61-491e-b836-69583d63d582n%40googlegroups.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/163a32e1-ac61-491e-b836-69583d63d582n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- > 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/d0bcb8d3-315b-4b71-8bfc-0b3ee8ec999dn%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d0bcb8d3-315b-4b71-8bfc-0b3ee8ec999dn%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/CAArMS01t3mwKoCxWxK%3DCSrEVsjaNCEDo6L2O7_HNc51vGBFF4w%40mail.gmail.com.
