On Saturday, November 16, 2024 at 11:13:52 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Saturday, November 16, 2024 at 4:52:05 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: On Friday, November 15, 2024 at 7:38:06 PM UTC-7 Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 12:02:14AM -0800, Alan Grayson wrote: > As I see it, JC's core claim about the MWI is that it follows from S's > equation It comes about by not making any further assumptions, like the wavefunction collapse of CI, or pilot waves of Bohmian mechanics which privilege one branch over the others. > ; namely, that anything the can happen (has a non-zero probability), > must happen (in some world). I fail to see anything in S's equation to support > this claim. And, I fail to see JC argue for this claim. Thus, IMO, I've put the > nail in the coffin to the MWI. AG > You think! Your mockery is well-deserved. How could I be so stupid, really fuckin' stupid? You, with your Ph'D, can see the obvious when when it comes to S's equation -- that it implies *what CAN happen, MUST happen! *So obvious! What could I be thinking? Hence, when a prairie dog turns its head, or someone turns left or right, whole universes are created. All this with the FATUOUS claim that you haven't added anything to S's equation! With such myopia, I sure can imagine you'd vote for Trump if you were an American. So let's called the MWI the Trumper form of physics, all the while we can jerkoff on how probabilities might exist in the context of these obviously NON-EXISTENT worlds. Nice work if you can get it. Now let me tell you an obvious truth; what S's equation tells us, is that if you repeat the same experiment numerous times, the frequencies of outcomes will approach the probabilities indicate in its wf solution. Too simple for a physics Trumper? Rather than that, you prefer the stupid, yes STUPID concept of worlds proliferating. or better yet metastasting, on the basis of a clearly unfounded claim that you've added nothing to S's equation. And JC is the MB leader of this crap, while reasonably intelligent people here fall for the bait. AG Of course, if some outcome has a non-zero probability of occurring, it will occur as the number of trials increases. However, there's nothing in S's equation to *assume* that on a *single* trial, *all outcomes occur*, and we therefore need multiple worlds to accomodate that result. AG One further point needs attention; claiming that all probabilities are realized on a single trial, necessitating multiple worlds, is like assuming the interference patterns in slit experiments can be reified by a single particle hitting the screen. Probabilities, by their inherent nature, require multiple trials to be realized. AG -- 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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/266b288f-f7c9-4d57-bea2-59d395f8a4a2n%40googlegroups.com.
