> On 12 Jan 2021, at 16:48, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 5:41:07 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 5:26:50 AM UTC-7 Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 3 Jan 2021, at 03:43, Alan Grayson <[email protected] <>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, January 2, 2021 at 2:17:12 AM UTC-7 [email protected] >> <http://gmail.com/> wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 5:35 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >> <[email protected] <>> wrote: >> >> >> Assuming that Many Worlds is true and the multiverse is completely >> >> determined by Schrodinger's equation and there are therefore an >> >> astronomically large number (perhaps an infinite number) of Bruce >> >> Kelletts with microscopic or submicroscopic differences between them, and >> >> those Bruce Kelletts were observing a stream of photons polarized at >> >> angle X hit a polarizing filter set to angle X+Y; would any one of those >> >> Bruce Kelletts be able to predict with certainty that Bruce Kellett would >> >> or would not observe the photon pass through that filter? No. Would Bruce >> >> Kellett have to resort to probability? Yes. How would Bruce Kellett >> >> calculate the probability? If Bruce Kellett wanted to avoid logical self >> >> contradictions there is only one method Bruce Kellett could use, the Born >> >> Rule. >> >> > I don't think that's quite true. Suppose for example BK decided to >> > predict that the polarization with the highest value of |psi|^2 is the one >> > that would pass thru. He wouldn't run into any logical contradiction >> > because he's not interpreting it as probability, >> >> If the BKs are Interpreting that as a certainty and not a probability then >> the BKs wouldn't run into a logical contradiction but they would run into an >> empirical one because that wouldn't match experimental observation. It's >> entirely possible that a BK's prediction would fail and that the high >> |psi|^2 photon would NOT make it through (unless the value happened to be >> exactly 1), and even if the prediction turned out to be correct scientific >> experiments must be repeatable and when the BKs conduct it over and over >> again all the BKs will soon find out that the predictions tend to be correct >> |psi|^2 of the time. >> >> > he wouldn't run into an empirical contradiction unless he assumed the >> actual process was producing a probability distribution and so he needed to >> predict a distribution and not just a value. >> >> But the BKs didn't assume it was a probability distribution, they discovered >> it was. If the BKs assumed the |psi|^2 value was just a number and not a >> probability and had no physical significance then the BKs would soon >> discover that the assumption was wrong >> >> > Once you know that you need a probability distribution from the wave >> > function...then Born's rule is the only choice. >> >> Yes. >> >> > But it's the step from the wave-function and "everything happens" to a >> > probability distribution where MWI leaves a gap. >> >> I don't see the gap. If Many Worlds was true then what would the Brent >> Meekers interpret |psi|^2 to mean? If it's just a number and means nothing >> then solving Schrodinger's equation would be a waste of time because that >> equation would also mean nothing, it should be ignored; but then we wouldn't >> have transistors or lasers or about 6.02*10^23 other things in modern life. >> >> The gap Brent refers to has nothing to do with Schrodinger's equation, as I >> previously explained. Every trial in an experiment can be interpreted as a >> separate horse race, creating its own set of worlds where each possible >> occurrence is allegedly measured. But on subsequent trials, the MWI gives no >> guarantee that the same set of worlds is created. IOW, without another >> postulate appended to the MWI, each world is associated with exactly ONE >> measurement. No ensembles in these worlds; hence, the necessary condition >> for a probability doesn't exist. AG. > > The born rule must be applied, and it concerns the relative accessible > histories. It is better to avoid the term “world” which is hard to define. > > Accessible to who, or to what? AG > > IMO, it's impossible to avoid using the term "world". After all, the MWI > depends on the claim that everything that CAN happen, MUST happen. IOW, every > possible measurement MUST be measured, somewhere, somehow. Can you measure an > event without an observer and measuring device? The "observer" doesn't have > to be human. It could be an instrument. But whatever it is, it surely DOES > imply a "world" of some sort, partially or fully. And once you admit that > other "worlds" necessarily come into existence given the core assumption on > which the MWI depends, the entire structure of the interpretation falls away, > into absurdity; e.g., where is the energy to create these worlds? AG
To be short: in the mind of the universal number, which lives in arithmetic. Bruno > > Bruno > > > > >> >> John K Clark See my new list at Extropolis >> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> >> >> > >> -- > >> 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/fa4b28ff-6606-4e06-9c22-d758906538d9n%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fa4b28ff-6606-4e06-9c22-d758906538d9n%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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5ec6c249-201f-4f6a-80a0-775e0ed216dcn%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5ec6c249-201f-4f6a-80a0-775e0ed216dcn%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/9BB4A343-79AA-408C-A00B-01B3CB0FBB3C%40ulb.ac.be.
