On Monday, January 25, 2021 at 8:22:53 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote:
> > On 26 Jan 2021, at 12:39 pm, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 25, 2021 at 1:23:07 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote: > >> >> >> On 1/25/2021 5:39 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 12:59:02 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 1/20/2021 3:58 AM, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 12:01 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >> 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,* >>>> >>> >>> Except for its simplicity the most important advantage of many worlds is >>> that it doesn't have to explain what "measured" means, or what a "observer" >>> means, or what a "choice" means because in many worlds ANY physical change >>> of any sort causes the Universe to split. >>> >>> >>> That sounds like a bug not a feature. Does every C14 decay in your body >>> instantiate a different world? Every photon that's absorbed by that >>> chlorophyll molecule instead of that other molecule? As Bruno says, "World" >>> and "Universe" become hard to define. If you say "This universe." does it >>> mean anything, even for a moment? But it you can't give meaning to "This" >>> how can you make sense of an experiment in which "This" evolves into >>> "That"? You need some way to talk about the quasi-classical world, because >>> as Bohr noted, that's where we live and that's where science predicts >>> things. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> Now you know why I call the MWI "Trump Physics". Its advocates will never >> admit it's woefully wrong, like our hopefully departed "leader" who never >> admits a mistake. Another example of this utter foolishness; note the >> numerous worlds created by ants which move along in repeated zig-zags. AG >> >> >> I think you get entirely to*o* worked up over it. >> > > *Do you believe Trump won by a landslide? Do lies matter? Does the MWI > help us understand physical reality? Is the alleged cure (of QM) worse than > the disease? AG* > > > Oh come on. MWI is not a “lie”, even if it’s wrong. It’s a physical theory > - or interpretation if you prefer. Certainly some people get passionately > attached to their pet theories, but we’re not talking about religions here. > As I’ve said before, I’m not an MWI “supporter” as if it were a football > team. I just want to know the truth of how the world actually works. And I > would be happy to drop MWI if there was an argument against it I found > intellectually compelling. Emotionally speaking, I’d *like* to do that, > because I find the idea of all those variants of myself unpleasant. But you > certainly haven’t persuaded me that you have that argument. Ridiculous > stories like the zig-zagging ants only reveal that you are the one with > wool in his ears here. Have you not grasped yet that the ants don’t > “create” the worlds any more than humans do? This has been explained many > times.The ants are simply part of the branching structure of the > multiverse, and the branches are not generated by the ants: they occur at > the subatomic level far below ant or human cognition. Neither ants nor any > other creatures are granted god-like powers here. And calling a physical > theory “Trumpian” is just trolling. > *The problem, of course, is that you're unable to think clearly. You have been co-opted by a cult, which I call "Trump Physics." Brent showed there is no "this" world in the MWI. This translates into experiments being ill-defined. No discernible physics! But don't let that bother you. Trumpers care not about straight-forward facts. AG* > We have a theory that has a huge domain of application. Is predictive and >> extremely accurate. The only problem is the interpretation of the >> processes described by the mathematics. Interpretations are not theories. >> They are not right or wrong, because they can't be tested. W.V.O. Quine >> contributed to this confusion by saying that ontology was the set of >> entities presupposed by our best theory. That's a philosopher's view. I >> seems to make the questions of Hilbert space or C*-algebra, discrete or >> continuous, Turing computable or not, into important questions of what >> really, really exists. That's the wrong attitude. It's the error of the >> misplaced concrete. Feynmann had it right when he said,"Every good >> physicists knows five different ways to express the same physics in >> mathematics." The function of interpretations is to suggest better >> theories. Better theories are ones with bigger domains and more accurate >> predictions. First we get better knowledge of facts; then we can worry >> about the ontology later. That's why I say epistemology precedes ontology. >> >> Everett saw that there was a gap in QM. Measurement wasn't really given >> a physical description. The collapse of the wave function was just stuck in >> by hand. So he tried to fill it in. This led to the study of decoherence >> and a better theory of measurement. It provides some definition of the >> Heisenberg cut. I think it still leaves a small gap. MWI advocates think >> it's complete. But it's an interpretation...it's not true or false. What >> will lead to unification with gravity and spacetime is the interesting >> question. >> >> BrentI >> > > -- > 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/b6b9b37d-ae11-4d4b-a1f7-1622f5f993a1n%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b6b9b37d-ae11-4d4b-a1f7-1622f5f993a1n%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/bc735f18-09a5-47a2-a6dc-f20ac2eaf254n%40googlegroups.com.
