On 11/21/2022 3:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 7:29 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]>
wrote:
/> The experimenter is just one copy/
And that pinpoints the error in your logic right there.
/> Many worlds does not explain why I, for example, see only
z-spin-up and not z-spin-down. To make sense of that, we need a
viable concept of probability and the Born rule./
Gleason's theorem proved mathematically that if you want this thing
called "probability" to have the property that it is always positive
and never negative, and the property that if you add up all the
"probabilities" they always add up to exactly 100% , then the Born
Rule can be derived from quantum mechanics provided you make the
assumption of non-reality (sometimes called Quantum contextuality),
that is to say if you assume that an unmeasured quality does NOT have
one and only one value. Many Worlds does make that assumption, or
rather it makes the assumption that Schrodinger's equation means what
it says, and once you do that you have no choice but to accept
non-reality. You can still save reality but to do so you must make
additional assumptions (such as the assumption that Schrodinger's
equation does NOT mean what it says), that's why some call Many Worlds
bare bones, no nonsense quantum mechanics, it has no silly bells and
whistles cluttering things up. And that's the sort of thing William of
Ockham would approve of.
It has an infinite number of other worlds, most differing from this
world only in unobservable ways. In comparison, taking the Born rule to
mean what it says seems like modest addition to the theory.
Brent
I admit that does not prove Many Worlds is correct but at least it
passes its first test, and it proves that conventional everyday
assumptions about the nature of reality must be dead wrong; you're
never going to find a quantum interpretation that feels obvious and
intuitively true and is also consistent with experimental
observations. So if Many Worlds is incorrect then something even
stranger must be true.
/> Many worlds does not explain why I, for example, see only
z-spin-up and not z-spin-down./
And Bruce Kellett does not explain what exactly the personal pronoun
"I" means in the context of Many Worlds. In Many Worlds for every
state that the laws of physics allows a particle to be in there is a
Bruce Kellett observing that state; so of course Mr. I will observe
one and only one state.
John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
trb
--
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/CAJPayv3NTXTaa-Od_JTEKvvmwns6cHqYuSuUs4ZQRNdQH%2BsXjw%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3NTXTaa-Od_JTEKvvmwns6cHqYuSuUs4ZQRNdQH%2BsXjw%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/d3b6cc68-056a-4524-000f-b7c70c61f476%40gmail.com.
