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 [email protected] wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 5:13 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> [email protected]> 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 [email protected]. > > 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/89df219b-9ff6-419f-837f-70061c4ef2bcn%40googlegroups.com.
