> On 5 Jul 2021, at 03:08, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:50 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > On 7/4/2021 5:30 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: >> >> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 12:54:45 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: >> It's not that it's necessarily 50/50; it's that there's no mechanism for it >> being the values in the Schroedinger equation. In one world A happens. In >> the other world B happens. How does, for example, a 16:9 ratio get >> implemented. >> >> For example, A happens in 16 worlds and B in 9 worlds. Or in general, the >> proportion of worlds where A happens to worlds where B happens is 16/9. > But it's an additional axiom that this is a probability measure and the split > is per the Schroedinger amplitudes. Which then makes it just like > Copenhagen. Note that that the odds ratio 16:9 depends on the interaction > with measuring instruments (some other measurement would yield different > odds) and so it depends on at what point you stop considering superpositions > and say "That's classical enough. Let's just zero out the cross terms in the > density matrix." Something Heisenberg or Born could have done and > essentially what Bohr said. He realized that any measurement that people > could agree on would have to be classical. So he held that the Heisenberg > cut could be anywhere close enough to consciousness to be quasi-classical. > Brent > > > Could it be because the mind is identified with a classical computation while > the brain is ultimately a quantum mechanical system?
The mind can be attached to a classical computation, but from its persona perspective, it can only be attached to an infinity of computation, and any physical object is “only” a map of the accessible personal and relative computations, and that is what gives its “blurry” quantum aspect. In arithmetic, that quantum aspect appears either with the “& p”, or with the “& <>t”. (Note that p -> <>p, but in a non provable way). “<>t” needs to be added to get a probability calculus, and the math (+ the work of Goldblatt and of the quantum logicians) confirms that it gives both the quantum logics, and the many-worlds (many-computations-as-seen-from-the-1p views) aspect. We are in the christian (materialist) era, and the god/non-debate is still used to hide a millenium of greek theology and the fact that they define God by Reality, and the doubt was that God could be a physical universe. The validity of Aristotle’s criteria of Reality (observable) was already refuted by the Dream Argument (anything testable is dream-able). Then, after the discovery of computer and computations in arithmetic (Turing, Kleene, …) the dream argument becomes constructive, and the mathematics of self)-reference G and G* gives the tools, and what is found is the quantum formalism. What is still missing are the particles… Bruno > > Jason > > > >> There's nothing in Schroedinger's equation that assigns one of those >> numbers to one world or the other. You can just make it an axiom. Or >> equivalently, if you can show these are odds ratios, you can invoke >> Gleason's theorem as the only consistent probability measure. But all that >> is extra stuff that MWI claims to avoid by just being pure Schroedinger >> equation evolution. >> >> In MWI the odds of being in a particular world depend on the counting of >> branches, similarly like the odds of selecting a particular ball from a >> basket depend on the counting of balls. But if there are infinitely many >> branches in MWI, different ways of counting give different probabilities, >> which means there are different possible probability measures, and so MWI >> needs an additional axiom that specifies the measure and thus the way of >> counting the branches. You say that the only possible (consistent) measure >> is the Born rule; in that case no additional axiom about the measure is >> needed (beyond the axiom of consistency, which goes without saying) and the >> branches must be counted in such a way that the probabilities result in the >> Born rule. >> >> -- >> 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/ea83ab1b-e3cc-4ef8-be8d-02d59e1722a7n%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ea83ab1b-e3cc-4ef8-be8d-02d59e1722a7n%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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/49f011f4-45f4-314f-1a6d-5356d98c0855%40verizon.net > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/49f011f4-45f4-314f-1a6d-5356d98c0855%40verizon.net?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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUjYJg1BUHF9MVts0fWbKPgWSMdLuM9Tn_n2WfXW%3DYyVhQ%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUjYJg1BUHF9MVts0fWbKPgWSMdLuM9Tn_n2WfXW%3DYyVhQ%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/4053A305-4E6C-4F74-84E9-0A16E8D1021B%40ulb.ac.be.
