On 1/20/2021 12:34 AM, Pierz Newton-John wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 6:29 pm, Alan Grayson <[email protected] <mailto:[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 those30 * (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 matterhow many times you say it that won't make it true.Every world that exists has had contact with each other in the past, theyI'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. 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’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.
That problem isn't solved by MWI. The Born rule still needs to be invoked and given a probabilistic interpretation. To call it "self-locating uncertainty" is the same concept obscured by different words. The problem with collapse was that it didn't have a corallary physical process, which was solved by decoherence. The same as "splitting" in MWI.
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.
But if you take results from earlier branches, will they be the same horses? Will there be horses which are identical except for having all possible names? Will the winning horses be the same but just have a different name. I think you can see this leads to madness. While you can imagine that "everything happens" in some sense, in some other world, that's not an inference from QM.
QM starts from some description of a physical system and evolves to a description of /possible/ future states...other future states are /impossible/. In AG's example, one starts from the beginning of the race and almost all future states that are imagineable are impossible. The winning horse represents the most probable outcome given quasi-classical evolution. For QM to be relevant implies that some quantum level event(s), e.g. a K40 decay in the horse's blood, was amplified enough to change the result relating the starting gate state to the finish line state...which is statistically "impossible" within the duration of the race.
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,/ BecauseSchrodinger's Equationsays nothing about the wave function collapsing and nobody, except for Many Worlds,seems to be able to come upwith 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 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/07752c4f-bf76-b3c1-0217-22ca735c7a75%40verizon.net.
