Since nobody has come up with a means of detecting an Everett MWI split, where's the pay off? Now, several physicists, like Guth, Linde, and Vilenkin, have postulated tons of parallel splits, but the process is eternal inflation.Allegedly, some astronomers and physics believes that have sighted dents in the universe where various cosms banged together. Or, their telescopes needed lense wipes?

-----Original Message----- From: Jesse Mazer <laserma...@gmail.com> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Mar 22, 2022 11:34 pm Subject: Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism If you are looking to build a toy model showing how Bell inequality violations can be explained locally in a scenario where each measurement results in multiple local copies of the experimenter, there is no good reason to impose the restriction that a given measurement which can yield one of two possible results (spin-up or spin-down) only results in two local copies, as opposed to say 4 copies of Bob that saw spin-up on that measurement, and 4 copies of Bob that saw spin-down, and likewise 4 copies of Alice that saw spin-down and 4 copies of Alice that saw spin-up. Suppose for example we are dealing with a Bell type experiment where if Alice and Bob both choose the same polarizer angle, they are guaranteed to see the same result, but if they choose different polarizer angles, they see the same result only 1/4 of the time, according to QM predictions (these probabilities would violate one of Bell's inequalities and thus be impossible to explain with one-universe local realism without superdeterminism). Then if both are split 8 ways as above, when they get together locally to compare results, if it turns out that they both chose the same detector angle, the universe can match the 4 spin-up Bob copies with the 4 spin-up Alice copies and likewise match the 4 spin-down Bobs to the 4 spin-down Alices. But if they chose different angles, when they get together locally the universe can match up 3 of the spin-up Bobs with 3 spin-down Alices, and 1 spin-up Bob with 1 spin-up Alice, while also matching the 3 spin-down Bobs with 3 spin-up Alices, and 1 spin-down Bob with 1 spin-down Alice. This will give a nice frequentist explanation of the QM prediction that there is only a 1 in 4 chance of them getting the same result when they choose different angles. This kind of local splitting with subsequent matching of copies when they get together to compare results will still work even if they perform a long sequence of measurements before getting together to compare results, I gave you a description of how the splitting-and-matching rule would work in this case in the last few paragraphs of my message at https://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/msg91022.html Jesse On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 10:55 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 1:35 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote: On 3/22/2022 6:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 10:26 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote: Let's consider this whole non-locality issue right from the start. Probably a good idea. The discussion has become rather confused. We should sort out exactly where we agree and where we disagree. In my explication, I just assumed Alice and Bob are light-hours apart so they can set the polarizers and run the whole experiment, including recording the N results while still spacelike. Actually, that is where I started. I assumed that Alice and Bob were both able to collect results from N trials before they met. Then there are 2^N copies of each experimenter, and a potential (2^N)^(2^N) pairs when they meet. The trouble to be explained is that there are actually only 2^N pairs in a real experiment, each with inequality-violating correlations. What has happened to all the extra pairings that MWI must produce? (Most of which have correlations violating the quantum predictions.) Bruce-- 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/CAFxXSLRq9XMH%3DTRrGN6NZ2uNHnEiJVcOS%2BUidJXh1k-Y6Kywxw%40mail.gmail.com. -- 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/CAPCWU3%2BgCmu6hkY-%3DQ8RznBJH8PeFftk8%3DRH-ze5BU%2BQzDS7LA%40mail.gmail.com. -- 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/551757419.1044237.1648008050618%40mail.yahoo.com.