On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 10:32 PM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 7:01 AM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> > wrote: > > *> In all cases, if the which-way information is preserved, no >>>> interference is seen. * >>> >>> >>> True. >>> >>> *> But if the which-way information is quantum erased, interference is >>>> visible. * >>> >>> >>> > Also true .... but then… why would you say "*I, too, would expect to >>> see interference bands*" if Deutsch's experiment was actually performed? >>> >> >> >> > *Because no which-way measurement is actually made in the Deutsch >> set-up.* >> > > Then why does the document insist that there was and why does it keep on > insisting no matter how many times the experiment is repeated? Do you think > the universe is inherently a liar and *NEVER* tells the truth? > Maybe the experiment does not do what you think it does. >> I stopped reading Hossenfelder sometime ago when she started defending >>> Superdeterminism; yes it can explain all the weirdness in the quantum world >>> but it requires, quite literally, the greatest violation of Occam's razor >>> that is possible in order to do so. I would even go so far as to say >>> Superdeterminism requires an *INFINITE *violation of Occam's razor, and >>> that is not a word I use very often. For that reason I don't see how any >>> rational person could take Superdeterminism seriously. >>> >> >> *> Belief in superdeterminism, or Zoroastrianism, or whatever, does not >> mean that everything a person writes is nonsense. To believe so is an >> example of the very worst form of argumentum ad hominem * >> > > *Don't give me that crap! *Are you really claiming that I don't have the > right to stop reading somebody if I choose to? > You can read or not read whoever you want. But that is not an argument against any views that they might express. It's relevant because Many Worlds and Superdeterminism are competitors, and > Superdeterminism is as utterly ridiculous as saying "*because of God*" is > the answer to all of life's mysteries. > > > *(or feminem in Hossenfelder's case).* >> > > If I criticize a physicist who happens to be black or a woman that does > not necessarily mean that I'm a racist or a misogynist, and to claim it > does is a very fine example of an argument by ad hominem. > > *> Besides, Sean Carroll gives essentially the same explanation from a >> many-worlds perspective:* > > >> *https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/?s=quantum+erase* >> <https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/?s=quantum+erase> >> > > If it really is "*essentially the same explanation*" then obviously it > does not contradict Deutsch's proposed experiment because Carroll is one of > the most vigorous advocates of Everett's many worlds idea, he wrote an > entire book about it, a very good book. > Deutsch's proposal does not "test many worlds", and Carroll makes no such claim. Sean simply explains delayed choice and the quantum eraser as straightforward quantum effects that are not in the least mysterious. They do not depend on any particular interpretation of quantum mechanics. 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRMV90vOsv4i98baq2jMmsZ8xAriZn6A63BNY6NES6NNA%40mail.gmail.com.
