On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 6:49 AM Lawrence Crowell < [email protected]> wrote:
*> There is a lot here that you wrote. Some does not seem to fit that > consistently, if you ask me. Einstein had none of these issues with the > development of GR,* If he had Einstein never would've found General Relativity. *> for at that time the conflict between our classical understanding and > quantum mechanics was not known.* Quantum Mechanics was not the first time it was realized that although there was a theory that could predict what would occur in an experiment it wasn't clear just what was going on at a deeper level, but Newton said he refused to speculate on the mechanism behind action at a distance. Fortunately Einstein refused to take Newton's advice and speculated anyway. > *GR is also a classical theory. * I know, but it was a revolutionary theory, and Quantum Mechanics does not have a monopoly on mystery. John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> mqt lqcm > > On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 8:26:56 AM UTC-6 [email protected] wrote: > >> On Sun, Mar 6, 2022 at 6:57 AM Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> *> The issue is the extent to which there is subjectivity. * >>> >> >> Yes, I agree. >> >> >> *> With MWI we have this idea an observer is in a sense "quantum frame >>> dragged" along eigenstates corresponding to all possible measurements, but >>> is able to make a conscious account of only one.* >>> >> >> I would say an "observer" very quickly becomes the "observers", and >> every one of them is able to make a conscious account of the state they are >> in, >> >> *> This observer witnesses this [pre]-measurement state as a separable >>> state that is local.* >>> >> >> And another observer witnesses a post measurement state as a separate >> state that is local. >> >> *> However, if the observer is frame dragged along all possible paths* >>> >> >> One observer is not dragged along every possible path, instead one >> observer is duplicated enough times to fill all possible paths. >> >> > *there is a statistical ensemble of separable states, but we know this >>> is not a separable state in total. What is an account of a separable state >>> is then subjective to the observer.* >>> >> >> Yes, some states are so nearly identical that they make no subjective >> difference to the observer; for example whether a butterfly in Brazil flaps >> its wings 3 times or 4 makes no subjective difference to an observer in New >> York (or at least not for a while, in a few months due to chaos it might >> make the difference between a blizzard hitting New York and missing it, but >> that's another matter). If 2 brains are identical then they're producing 2 >> identical conscious experiences, and in that case I don't think it would be >> meaningful to say there are 2 observers. Some wonder if there are an >> infinite number of worlds how can Many Worlds get probabilities out of it, >> I think this is how, there may be an infinite number of worlds but there >> are only a finite number of beings who could reasonably call themselves >> "John Clark" or "Lawrence Crowell". >> >> *> This is to be compared to qubism, where the probability outcome is a >>> subjective Bayesian update.* >>> >> >> When calculating probability subjectivity cannot be ignored in the Many >> Worlds >> idea either. >> >> > *There are some things to be said for Qubism IMO, though it has some >>> almost solipsistic implications.* >>> >> >> Yes, and that's one of the things I dislike about Qubism. I take it as >> an axiom of existence that I am not the only conscious being in the >> universe, I can't prove it's true but I can prove that I need to believe it >> in order to function. >> >> >>> *> Qubism is a ψ-epistemic interpretation while MWI is ψ-ontological,* >>> >> >> Yes. >> >> >>> > *in that with qubism assigns no particular existence to the wave >>> function.* >>> >> >> That's another thing I dislike about Qubism, to me it seems uncomfortably >> close to the "shut up and calculate" school of thought. Many Worlds is >> the most straightforward explanation of what's going on, it's what you get >> if you just keep following Schrodinger's Equation and don't just >> arbitrarily shut it down for no apparent reason with a wave collapse. >> >> >>> *> The quantum wave of course has no operator assigned to it that gives >>> an eigenvalue, but there is the density operator ρ = |ψ〉〈ψ| that defines >>> probabilities. Probability is in qubism based again on Bayesian statistics >>> considers these subjective. With MWI the wave function is treated more as a >>> real, real in the existential sense than mathematical, object, but it is >>> highly nonlocal. This splitting off of worlds is not tied to any point in >>> space or spacetime* >>> >> >> If the only difference between universes is the number of times a >> butterfly flaps its wings and the question is how fast the universe splits >> because of that difference it could be thought of in 2 ways, which you >> choose as a matter of taste. You could say the split starts at the >> butterfly and spreads outward at the speed of light, or you could say the >> entire universe splits instantaneously, both ideas produce identical >> results with no way to differentiate between the two. >> >> *> At best either one uses the one which makes the best sense of some >>> problem, or you just "shut up and calculate." * >>> >> >> It seems to me if Einstein had just stuck with calculating Newtonian >> problems and hadn't even tried to think about how action at a distance >> could occur or about anything else that was actually going on he never >> would've found General Relativity. And "shut up and calculate" would turn >> science into an incredibly dull field of study.... when you changed the >> experimental set up of an experiment from state X to state Y the only thing >> you could conclude from that is that the reading on a voltmeter will >> decrease from 8 to 7, speculation on what was actually going on that >> could've caused that change would be forbidden. >> >> > *it all involves the issue to what extent the decoherence of quantum >>> states by coupling a larger quantum system (measurement apparatus or >>> observer) is at all computable.* >>> >> >> Some problems in pure mathematics are not computable, but there's no >> evidence that any of them have anything to do with physics, and in fact >> there is no evidence that nature even knows how to solve NP-hard problems >> in polynomial time. Quantum Computer expert Scott Aaronson actually tested >> this, and this is what he found: >> >> >> >> *" Taking two glass plates with pegs between them, and dipping the >> resulting contraption into a tub of soapy water. The idea is that the soap >> bubbles that form between the pegs should trace out the minimum Steiner >> tree — that is, the minimum total length of line segments connecting the >> pegs, where the segments can meet at points other than the pegs themselves. >> Now, this is known to be an NP-hard optimization problem. So, it looks like >> Nature is solving NP-hard problems in polynomial time!Long story short, I >> went to the hardware store, bought some glass plates, liquid soap, etc., >> and found that, while Nature does often find a minimum Steiner tree with 4 >> or 5 pegs, it tends to get stuck at local optima with larger numbers of >> pegs. Indeed, often the soap bubbles settle down to a configuration which >> is not even a tree (i.e. contains “cycles of soap”), and thus provably >> can’t be optimal.* >> >> *The situation is similar for protein folding. Again, people have said >> that Nature seems to be solving an NP-hard optimization problem in every >> cell of your body, by letting the proteins fold into their minimum-energy >> configurations. But there are two problems with this claim. The first >> problem is that proteins, just like soap bubbles, sometimes get stuck in >> suboptimal configurations — indeed, it’s believed that’s exactly what >> happens with Mad Cow Disease. The second problem is that, to the extent >> that proteins do usually fold into their optimal configurations, there’s an >> obvious reason why they would: natural selection! If there were a protein >> that could only be folded by proving the Riemann Hypothesis, the gene that >> coded for it would quickly get weeded out of the gene pool." * >> >>> > *The shut-up-and-calculate approach might be compared to the Euclid >>> 5th axiom that is not decidable,* >>> >> >> Euclid's 5th axiom might be decidable, not through mathematics but >> through physics and astronomy, and the best evidence we have so far is that >> it's true, the universe seems to have no overall global curvature. A better >> example might be the Continuum Hypothesis because that involves infinite >> sets and it's not clear if real physical lines actually do contain an >> infinite number of points, it's not even clear if an infinite number of >> anything that's physical exists. >> >> > *I am not particularly an upholder of any interpretation of quantum >>> mechanics.* >>> >> >> I'm not either really, I'm just saying Many Worlds is the least bad >> explanation of Quantum Mechanics that I know of, maybe tomorrow somebody >> will find a better one. But whatever the truth turns out to be there is one >> thing I feel certain of, it will be weird. >> >> >> > > -- 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/CAJPayv19A%2BuqpPcAVGG9VPtYowkVWvnrYfNWC7KFbK%3D8wyv%2B7A%40mail.gmail.com.
