On 08-02-2021 03:51, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Sunday, February 7, 2021 at 6:14:39 PM UTC-7 [email protected]
wrote:
On 07-02-2021 08:29, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Saturday, February 6, 2021 at 4:05:38 PM UTC-7 [email protected]
wrote:
That's a good explanation. As pointed out in the video, there is
really
only one wavefunction, which is the wavefunction of the entire
universe.
At around 5:15 he makes the fundamental error IMO in describing
superposition; namely, that a system can be in different states
simultaneously. It's the myth about QM which is hard to shake. Why
not
just assume an ignorance interpretation of superposition; namely,
there are several states a system could be in, often with
different
probabilities, but we don't know which one? I don't see this as an
inherent denial of interference, which I think is why this
interpretation is rejected. AG
It is true that a system being in different states simultaneously is
a
poor way of describing what is going on, because "simultaneously"
refers
to events in one universe, while what is meant is that there are
parallel worlds in which everything is the same including the state
of
any clocks that measures time, except that the photon takes a
different
path.
I suppose you mean that another world is created for each eigenstate
of the superposition. I've shown the fallacy of this interpretation in
other discussions here, but haven't received a plausible reply.
Specifically, since we're dealing with linear algebra, Hilbert spaces,
there is no unique basis and therefore no unique superposition
describing the same wf! So the worlds you claim to exist are
over-determined. What worlds are you referring to? Which basis and
eigenstates are you using, and why is that basis to be preferred? AG
Yes, that's a valid objection, one cannot just take some arbitrary
component of the wavefunction and declare that to be some world on an
ad-hoc basis. Note that there is no "official MWI" that people who say
they support the MWI stick to and some questions like this one, or the
way one should interpret probabilities and other such problems, will get
different answers depending on who you ask.
The basis problem has, i.m.o., a simple solution. You have to define the
physical observer states first. Or at least you have to consider that
such physical states exist. I would define an observer who is aware of
observing something to be a computation that is processing data such
that all of the the data processed defines everything the observer is
aware of. I.e. not just the result of the observation but also the
identity of the observer, what he had for dinner yesterday, etc. etc. So
there exists in principle a well defined physical state for Saibal to be
aware that the result of a spin measurement was spin up, there also
exists one for Alan if he had performed exactly the same measurement and
found exactly the same result, but because Saibal is not Alan, the
processes are nevertheless different.
While these physical states for observers making observations have an
extremely complicated structure, the general structure that is contained
within them that tells you that a spin in some initial state i was
measured and that the result was r, has a general structure that takes
the form of an entangled superposition where both i and r objectively
exist in the environment and the terms of the superposition contains
information about how the observer would have acted had the input be
different.
So, in the MWI, the states that contain some given observer experiencing
something definite exist, one can then appeal to the existence of such a
basis.
And, as others have already pointed out in this thread, it can't be
due
to ignorance as that's ruled out by the violation of Bell's
inequality.
By "ignorance" I am NOT asserting the existence of hidden variables. I
merely prefer to say we don't know anything more than different
probabilities for different possible outcomes. Why does this force
anyone to assume hidden variables? AG
If with more knowledge than we currently have about the laws of physics,
we could deduce more about the outcome of the measurement than the
probabilities we can currently derive using QM, then we can already rule
that out using the known experimental results. The only possible options
are then that a more detailed theory does not exist, or that it has
nonlocal features. In the latter case the information about the
measurement result does exist before the measurement is made, but it is
not present locally within the system that is going to be measured.
Saibal
See also this experiment that demonstrates this in a much simpler
way
than using Bell inequalities:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1418&v=EtyNMlXN-sw
TY. I'll try to view this. AG
Saibal
On 06-02-2021 20:27, John Clark wrote:
Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why [1]
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/CAJPayv3X6qaRJecTGkBq596HR_dhHLnpR5M_o6VJcYF%2BLGK%3DRg%40mail.gmail.com
[2].
Links:
------
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTXTPe3wahc&t=7s
[2]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3X6qaRJecTGkBq596HR_dhHLnpR5M_o6VJcYF%2BLGK%3DRg%40mail.gmail.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/6165298b-49ff-42d7-975e-3d8ea621af5bn%40googlegroups.com
[1].
Links:
------
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6165298b-49ff-42d7-975e-3d8ea621af5bn%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/38d441ab-45de-4136-95a9-4fbf9d3971den%40googlegroups.com
[1].
Links:
------
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/38d441ab-45de-4136-95a9-4fbf9d3971den%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/02f8defe78099f75963abf382cb3ef9b%40zonnet.nl.
