On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 1:16:02 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote:
> > On 7/2/2021 5:54 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 4:01:35 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 5:13 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >>> > *why do you think a probability amplitude wave would not produce a >>> discreet spot? Do you imagine it should produce smear werever it is >>> greater than 10% or 1% or what? * >>> >> >> Probability must be about something and that something had to either have >> happened or have not happened; so it should produce a smear if and only if >> the probability is greater than 0% but less than 100%. That's why if you >> place a detector near one of the slits so you know which one the electron >> went through you see no interference pattern, but as soon as you remove >> that detector you do. >> >> >> the complex wave function, which contains the square root of -1 in it, >>>> is NOT an observable quantity, >>> >>> >>> * > Right, only the amplified and decohered effect of the probabilistic >>> event is observable. That's why Bohr insisted that a classical world was >>> necessary in order that science be possible, since only classical >>> observables could be objectively agreed upon.* >>> >> >> Bohr was a great scientist but a lousy philosopher. If Bohr's philosophy >> requires classical physics then obviously Bohr's philosophy is wrong >> because classical physics is a theory known to be incorrect. As Richard >> Feynman said "Nature is quantum dammit!" >> >> > *there's a disconnect between the mechanism of decoherence and the >>> assignment of probabilities to different worlds, as Bruce has pointed out. >>> There has to be a separate axiom that says there is this splitting into >>> worlds that is probabilistic. * >> >> >> There is nothing in Schrodinger's equation that says anything about the wave >> collapsing, so Everett simply says it doesn't collapse and that means >> you've got many worlds; it's bare-bones quantum mechanics that contains >> everything that is required and not one more thing. If you don't like all >> those worlds and want to get rid of them you've got to stick on some >> additional bells and whistles to the equation that, other than get rid of >> those many worlds, do nothing but make the equation more difficult to >> solve. >> > > There are two main schools of thought on the wave function collapse; the > wave function collapse is real or it is not. The GRW interpretation states > there is with any quantum wave a fundamental phenomenon of collapse. The > collapse occurs fundamentally by a stochastic rule. A large number of > quantum states with some measure of entanglement then has a far greater > probability in any interval of time of a collapse. The classical state is a > sort of constant collapsing condition. The other view is that quantum wave > function collapse is an illusion and that fundamentally there is no > collapse. The MWI is an instance of that, where there is a splitting of the > world according to different quantum amplitudes and an observer records > data along two or more tracks. The observer enters into an entanglement > with the system and what the observer records is in a sense "frame dragged" > along each of those branches. > > > You left out a third school of thought, that the wave function is just a > mathematical tool and it's "collapse" is just a matter of one updating > knowledge of the system. This includes the QBist, path-integral, and > consistent histories approaches. > > And I'm not sure where you place the transactional approach of Cramer in > which there is a real, probabilistic collapse but not spontaneous. > > Brent > Well I did not cover all interpretations. There are two types with respect to collapse, collapse realism and collapse anti-realism. MWI is ψ-ontological and Qubism is ψ-epistemic, but that are both collapse anti-real. This is where Qubism departs from Copenhagen Interpretation, which is collapse real. If the collapse is regarded as just a math-tool then I would tend to call it collapse anti-real. I am not so sure about the transactional interpretation. I communicated with Ruth Kastner who seems to think any discussion of QM outside of transactionalism is gibberish. LC > > In both of these perspectives there is an unknown mechanism. How the GRW > spontaneous collapse occurs is not defined or presented as due to a > physical process. Similarly, MWI has this splitting of worlds, where on the > global level nothing really changes, but locally to an observer a change > does happen. There is no mechanism for this splitting. > > Quantum mechanics by itself has no collapse process, whether real or some > sort of subjective observation of phenomenology. The Yggdrasil tree of > bifurcating worlds in MWI occurs for no discernible reason and globally it > is not real. With GRW objective collapse there is again no fundamental > mechanism behind this collapse. This may point to some further underlying > physics. If there is such physics it must have some conservation or > symmetry principle. If it does not have such then in effect it really is > not physics. We might then appeal to conservation of information, > information sharing an equivalency with a form of entropy by Shannon-von > Neumann formula, or quantum complexity. Which ever of these quantum > interpretations fits best into such an understanding is not clear to see at > this time. > > LC > > >> >> >>> *> Self-locating uncertainty was invented to explain this, but it seems >>> incoherent in that it supposes there is some "self" that could be here or >>> there, independent of the physical being which is both places. * >>> >> >> There is absolutely nothing more certain than the existence of the self, >> but there is nothing mystical about that; it's just that it's not a noun. >> The self is what the brain does, not what the brain is, so "self" must >> be an adjective. I would define the particular self called John K Clark >> recursively, he is whoever remembers being John K Clark yesterday. If >> Everett is right and every change no matter how small causes the >> universe to split, then there must be some changes to my brain that are so >> small (one neutron in one neuron moving one Planck length to the left ) >> that they cause no change in conscious experience and do not degrade the >> memory of being John K Clark yesterday. Therefore there must be an >> astronomical number to an astronomical power of John K Clarks all living in >> different, very very slightly different, worlds. The number would be >> HUGE but it would still be finite, so the number of John K Clarks that see >> you flip a fair coin and come up heads 5 times in a row must be twice as >> large as the number of times he sees you do it 6 times, but there would >> still be a few that see him do it 100 times, maybe 1000 or even more. >> >> John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis >> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> >> mxc2 >> >> -- > 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cfb3b561-7bce-4811-802f-7bb6141ded13n%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cfb3b561-7bce-4811-802f-7bb6141ded13n%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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/89df219b-9ff6-419f-837f-70061c4ef2bcn%40googlegroups.com.
