On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 11:14:16AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 10:35 AM Russell Standish <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 10:05:56AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 9:30 AM Russell Standish <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 03:52:25PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 3:28 PM Russell Standish < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 03:08:03PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 2:41 PM Russell Standish < > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't think it requires this assumption. In fact > "physically > > real" > > > > is a rather nebulous concept anyway. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want the 'other worlds' to be physically real, then > the original wave > > > > function must be physically real. > > > > > > That's a non-sequitur. The 'other worlds' are as real as this > one. The > > > reality of the wave function doesn't enter into it. > > > > > > > > > It does if the wave function is purely epistemic. In other words, > if it is > > > merely a means of calculating probabilities, then the supposed > 'other worlds' > > > do not exist. The probabilities are the probability that one, and > only one, > > > outcome is realized for each experiment. > > > > You've lost me here. Even if the wf is epistemic, it has no bearing > on > > whether other branches are as real as this one or not. > > > > > > It does have a significant bearing on the reality of the other branches. > One of > > the frequently stated arguments for many worlds is that it avoids the > problem > > of the wave function collapse. The collapse of the wave function is only > a > > problem if the wave function is a physical object, because then you run > into > > problems with instantaneous action at a distance or FTL physical action. > If the > > wave function is purely epistemic, namely, nothing more than a summary > of > our > > knowledge about the physical system, there is no problem with collapse, > because > > the result of an experiment merely updates our knowledge, and the wave > function > > is updated to reflect this change in knowledge. This is exactly what > happens in > > classical probability. > > > > If the wave function is purely epistemic, there is no problem with > collapse, > > and the additional worlds that MWI introduces play no useful role and > can > > readily be discarded. The other worlds need be real only if the wave > function > > itself is real, and some way of avoiding a physical collapse is > required. > Once > > you avoid the collapse problem, the many-worlds scenario becomes otiose. > > I do agree with you that an epistemic wave function has no problem > with collapse, but I've always said the collapse issue was rather > secondary compared with the issue of what privileges one branch over > all the others as being "real". > > > Not a problem if the branches do not exist. All we have on the epistemic > interpretation is the probabilities that the future will be one way or > another. > > > Stating that all branches are equally real with the one we observer > obviates the need for something to say one branch is more real than > the others, without committing to saying whether anything is real, or > even what "real" really means. > > > But there are no branches to be "equally real". You are fond of calling sound > arguments "non sequitur".
If the arguments were sound, I would not call them non-sequitur. There is the possibility I missed something you consider obvious, but in that case, I just ask you to dig deeper to join the dots. > Your claim that all branches are equally real is > indeed a non sequitur, in that it does not follow from anything at all. > Indeed. As is that there is only a single reality. But one is simpler than the other. A lot of people get Occam's razor wrong here. But my claim was "Stating that all branches are equally real with the one we observe [sic] obviates the need for something to say one branch is more real than the others". This is a pretty logical statement, some would say of the bleeding obvious, but it does seem necesseary to point it out. > > In contrast to your last statement, I find "single world > interpretations" otiose, in much the same way as I find Christian > theology otiose. > > > That is among the sillier remarks that you have made. In order to have a single world interpretation, you need a something that privileges that single world. It is remarkably analogous to saying "God did it", and equally as mysterious. It is certainly not intended as a silly remark. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders [email protected] http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ZzqL4GvlNjSqH2pg%40zen.
