> On 30 Jan 2021, at 05:06, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 29, 2021 at 8:19:47 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > On Friday, January 29, 2021 at 3:00:17 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote: > > > On 1/29/2021 5:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> If you induce decoherence by measuring at the slits, then the interference >>> pattern disappears -- you have certainly created a separate "world" for >>> each path, but these can no longer interfere. That is part of the >>> definition of the "worlds" that are created by irreversible decoherence. >> >> >> No problem. >> >> >>> >>> So the concept of "world" is, indeed, well-defined in physics. >> >> >> By giving a magic role to the observer, or its consciousness, or of >> measurement. The observer can no more be a machine in that picture. > > There's no magic or observer invoked. That's the function of decoherence, > which operates independent of observers or deliberate measurement. > > >> >> >> >> >>> It might not be defined in logic or metaphysics, but this is of no concern >>> to the working physicist -- we know perfectly well what we mean by "a >>> world”. >> >> FAPP. OK. >> The goal here is to try to understand what happens. >> >> >> >>> And we can readily tell when someone is talking nonsense by claiming that >>> "worlds interfere statistically without interacting”. >> >> ? (That is rather standard, and pretty obvious, I would say). > > Really? I've never heard of it and it seems pretty obviously nonsense to me. > > I made a similar comment when this word salad of nonsense was first posted by > Bruno. It's Trump Physics in spades, full of sound and fury but signifying > nothing; that is, no contact with real physics. Yet you think I go too far. > Baffling. AG > > Another weirdness is the MWI claim by the usual suspects that QM leaves > "measurement" and "observer" undefined.
Because the collapse is itself not explain, and this introduce a dualism in the ontology. Bohr was aware of this. With Everett, the observer is well defined, although Everett does not do it mathematically. It invokes an automata, but in fact his argument has to be generalised on arithmetic if that automata is Turing universal, like us. Everett confirms the “many-histories” inherent in the fact that all computations are realised in the standard model of arithmetic (which can be defined by the intersection of all models of arithmetic). Bruno > I explained this earlier, but alas, they prefer their ridiculous claims. > E.g., in the double slit experiment, a "measurement" occurs when a particle > hits the screen. The "observer" is anyone or anything that records the > result. Nothing particularly deep here, but the usual suspects find these > definitions woefully wanting. Trump Physics in play. AG > > > Brent > > > -- > 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/93f22ad5-d51d-41cc-bd6a-d8cde0ed4d5cn%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/93f22ad5-d51d-41cc-bd6a-d8cde0ed4d5cn%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/4267B893-D90E-4356-8D6E-F4CF56F61EAC%40ulb.ac.be.
