> On 14 Jan 2021, at 13:07, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:26:42 AM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 2:42:43 PM UTC+11 [email protected] > <applewebdata://E95A4776-6388-4940-885B-D2E50F7B475B> wrote: > On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 8:29:16 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > On Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 1:23:11 PM UTC+11 [email protected] <> > wrote: > On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 4:33:20 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 5:50:29 PM UTC+11 [email protected] <> > wrote: > On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 10:19:59 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: > > > On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 12:09:06 PM UTC+11 [email protected] <> wrote: > On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 3:56:51 PM UTC-7 [email protected] <> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 5:21 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected] <>> wrote: > > > The MWI doesn't guarantee that these subsequent measurements, for > > subsequent horse races say, are occurring in the SAME OTHER worlds as > > trials progress, to get ensembles in those OTHER worlds. > > I don't know what you mean by "SAME OTHER worlds", the same as what? In one > world Alan Grayson remembers having seen the electron go left, in another > world Alan Grayson remembers having seen the electron go right, other than > that the two worlds are absolutely identical, so which one was the "SAME > OTHER world"? > > > You seem to avoid the fact that no where does the MWI guarantee [...] > > Quantum mechanics is not in the guarantee business, it deals with > probability. > > > I don't think you understand my point, which isn't complicated. > > Yes, your point is very simple indeed, but the word simple can have 2 > meanings, one of them is complementary and the other not so much. > > In first trial, the MWI postulates other worlds comes into existence. Same > other worlds in second trial? Same other worlds in third trial, etc? Where > does the MWI assert these other worlds are the SAME other worlds? Unless it > does, you only have ONE measurement in each of these worlds. No probability > exists in these other worlds since no ensemble of measurements exist in these > other world. AG > > You grossly misunderstand MWI. There are no "same other" worlds. The worlds > that arise at each trial are different in precisely one way and one way only: > the eigenvalue recorded for the experiment. The different eigenvalues will > then give rise to a "wave of differentiations" as the consequences of that > singular difference ramifies, causing the different worlds generated by the > original experimental difference to multiply. "World" really means a unique > configuration of the universal wave function, so two worlds at different > trials can't possibly be the "same world", and yes, there is only one > measurement in each. > > This is what I have been saying all along! AG > No it isn't. I agree you have been saying there is only one measurement > outcome in each world. However this business about "same other worlds" > betrays your lack of comprehension. It's not that MWI "doesn't guarantee" > that the the worlds at each trial are the same world. It's that the whole > notion of "same other worlds" means nothing in this context and has no > bearing on anything. A bit like arguing when we add 1 and 1 twice whether we > are guaranteed that the ones we add each time are the "SAME ones" at each > addition. If mathematics can't guarantee that then how can we be sure the > answer is the same? Basically the only answer to that is "WTF?" > > That is precisely the stipulation of MWI. If we have a quantum experiment > with two eigenvalues 1 and 0, and each is equally likely per the Born rule, > then the MWI interpretation is that - effectively - two worlds are created. > You, the experimenter, end up in both, each version knowing nothing about the > other. > > Again, what I have been saying all along! AG > If you get that, then the next bit follows. > > So, in the "objective world" (the view from outside the whole wave function > as it were), no probability is involved. But if you repeat this experiment > many times, each version of you will record an apparently random sequence of > 1s and 0s. Your best prediction of what happens in the next experiment is > that it's a 50/50 toss up between 1 and 0. Objectively there's no randomness, > subjectively it appears that way. > > Here's where you go astray. AG > > So you say! Without justifying yourself in any way. You seem to be saying > that probability can't describe QM experiments because in each world there is > only one outcome and therefore no "ensemble" of outcomes from which a > probability can be derived. That is totally wrong-headed. There are two > "ensembles": the ensemble of different multiverse branches at each > experiment, and the ensemble of each experimenter's prior measurements, and > those are enough to derive the appearance of randomness and to justify a > probabilistic description despite the objective lack of randomness. If you > agree with "what you have been saying all along", then you must agree that > every experimenter in every world in an MWI multiverse will see a record of > an apparently random sequence of 1s and 0s in the described experiment. > Right? And if not why not? > > IMO, since the trials are independent, the other observers are disjoint from > each other and each records only one measurement. So the only observer who > sees an ensemble is the observer in THIS world. To get an ensemble of > outcomes in those other worlds, and hence a probability, you need to appeal > to a non-existent observer, also called the Bird's Eye observer. AG > > Respectfully, you did not answer my question. Do you agree or not that every > experimenter in every branch of the multiverse who records a series of > experiments as described in my scenario will record a seemingly random string > of 1s and 0s? If you do, that's really all that's required. Abstract debates > about "ensembles required to get a probability" are moot. If the world is as > described by MWI, the appearance of probability is an outcome, and > probability is the best possible description of how quantum experiments turn > out from any real observer's POV (as opposed to the Bird's Eye observer). If > you disagree that experimenters will get a seemingly random string of 1s and > 0s, then you'll need to explain why you think that. > > I did answer your question. Since the trials are independent, a NEW OTHER > WORLD observer is created on each THIS WORLD trial. So the other observers > see ONE outcome each. No reason to assume otherwise. You need another > postulate for this to work. AG > > You're talking like a politician. Does each observer in each world who > repeats said experiment record a seemingly random series of 1s and 0s or not? > Yes/no. It's not hard. Come on, you can do it now... > > The answer is NO. In the spin experiment we're discussing, AG in this world > measures an apparently random sequence of 0's and 1's. On each trial an > imaginary other AG measures the complement of what AG in this world measured. > Now since the trials are independent, different imaginary AGs always measure > complements, but none measure more than ONE RESULT. As I previously > indicated, these other AGs are disjoint from each other. The only way to > remedy this situation is to add another postulate to your MWI. AG
“Imaginary” will be a relative notion, or you lose the MWI interference, or you lose Mechanism (used by Everett, almost correctly up to a point as I have explained sometimes (the wave must be extracted from arithmetic to get things right with respect to the relation between consciousness and observation). Invoking a “world” is the same mistake as invoking a god. That does not work, and only make things more complex, independently of the true of falsity of that belief. Bruno > > -- > 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/ce451345-3aae-49ee-bab3-a05d1de9d164n%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ce451345-3aae-49ee-bab3-a05d1de9d164n%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/8BDB9A0C-4510-4403-87EF-4FA0DF0E85F6%40ulb.ac.be.
