On 29-11-2024 15:36, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 4:40 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]>
wrote:
_> As Barandes writes in (which you should watch)_
NO OFFENSE BRENT BUT I'M NOT GONNA WATCH AN HOUR LONG VIDEO BY
SOMEBODY I'VE NEVER HEARD OF PROMOTING A THEORY THAT I CONSIDER
EVEN LESS CREDIBLE THAN THE "DINOSAURS NEVER EXISTED THEORY",
ESPECIALLY WHEN I NOTE IT ONLY HAS 12 VIEWS.
THE ENTIRETY OF REALITY CONSISTS OF A UNIVERSAL WAVE FUNCTION
(UWF), IT DESCRIBES THE POSITION AND MOMENTUM OF EVERY PARTICLE IN
EXISTENCE AT ANY INSTANT IN TIME. IF A HUMAN COULD OBSERVE THINGS
FROM THE OUTSIDE HE WOULDN'T NEED TO RESORT TO PROBABILITY,
_> Really? _
YES REALLY. OR DO YOU DISPUTE THE FACT THAT SCHRODINGER'S EQUATION
IS DETERMINISTIC?
_> What about atomic decay?_
WHAT ABOUT IT? MOST BRENT MEEKERS WILL SEE AN ATOM THAT HAS A
HALF-LIFE OF ONE HOUR DECAY CLOSE TO THAT TIME BECAUSE THOSE BRANCHES
OF THE MULTIVERSE HAVE THE GREATEST QUANTUM AMPLITUDE (OR AS I LIKE TO
THINK OF IT ON A BRANCHING 2-D DIAGRAM, THOSE LINES HAVE A GREATER
THICKNESS) BUT A FEW BRENT MEEKERS WILL SEE THE ATOM DECAY AFTER ONLY
A 10TH OF A SECOND, AND OTHER BRENT MEEKERS WILL HAVE TO WAIT 2 HOURS
BEFORE IT DECAYS, AND OTHER BRENT MEEKERS NEED TO WAIT FOR 4 HOURS,
AND 8 HOURS, AND 16 HOURS, AND 32 HOURS ETC. AND A VERY FEW BRENT
MEEKERS WILL DIE OF OLD AGE BEFORE THEY SEE THE ATOM DECAY.
What is also worthwhile to consider in these discussions about
probability, Born rule etc. the fact that probability cannot be
rigorously defined in a physical context as David Deutsch explains here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzSE4Hoxbc&t=1036s
For practical purposes this is not a problem. But it is a problem for
formulating fundamental laws of nature in terms of probability if one
cannot rigorously define probability without resorting to mathematical
concepts that cannot be physically realized. And while in the MWI one
may actually get around this issue with probability if one assumes an
infinite number of effective branches. So, it's then actually more of a
problem for single universe interpretations, because in such a setting
there is not going to be an exact physical representation of
probability.
Saibal
IN ANY QUANTUM EXPERIMENT SUPERDETERMINISM AND MANY WORLDS MAKE
IDENTICAL PREDICTIONS, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS MANY WORLDS ONLY
NEEDS ONE ASSUMPTION TO MAKE CORRECT PREDICTIONS WHILE
SUPERDETERMINISM NEEDS TO MAKE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF THEM.
_> You're just making stuff up. Superdeterminism doesn't make any
more deterministic predictions than MWI or Copenhagen, because the
initial conditions are unknown_
YES THE INITIAL CONDITIONS ARE UNKNOWN AND NEITHER MWI NOR COPENHAGEN
CLAIMS TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THEM, BUT THAT'S OK BECAUSE THEY
BOTH WORK FINE WITH ANY PARTICULAR STARTING CONDITION, THEY EVEN WORK
FINE IF THE UNIVERSE HAS NO INITIAL CONDITIONS AT ALL BECAUSE THE
UNIVERSE IS INFINITELY OLD. AND THE SAME IS TRUE OF OBJECTIVE COLLAPSE
AND PILOT WAVE. HOWEVER THE CASE IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WITH
SUPERDETERMINISM, IT MAKES MANY DEMANDS THAT THE OTHERS DO NOT.
SUPERDETERMINISM WILL ONLY WORK IF THE UNIVERSE (OR MULTIVERSE) IS
FINITELY OLD AND THUS HAD A STARTING CONDITION, AND THERE ARE AN
INFINITE NUMBER OF STARTING CONDITIONS THAT WOULD RESULT IN A UNIVERSE
WHERE SUPERDETERMINISM FAILS, BUT ONLY ONE STARTING CONDITION WILL
RESULT IN A UNIVERSE WHERE IT WORKS BECAUSE IN THAT UNIVERSE
SUPERDETERMINISM WILL NEVER HAVE TO FACE ITS GREATEST ENEMY, THE
SCIENTIFIC METHOD. IN THAT ONE UNIVERSE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD DOES NOT
WORK AND EXPERIMENTATION IS JUST A WASTE OF TIME.
_> and so produce probabilistic answers in the same way MWI says you
don't know which world you'll be in_.
NO! IN SUPERDETERMINISM THE ULTIMATE REASON "YOU" NEED TO RESORT TO
PROBABILITY IS THAT "YOU" DON'T HAVE PERFECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE
PREVIOUS STATE OF THE UNIVERSE; BY CONTRAST MANY WORLDS SAYS "YOU"
NEEDS TO RESORT TO PROBABILITY BECAUSE OF THE VERY NATURE OF THE
PERSONAL PRONOUN "YOU". IN MANY WORLDS ASKING "_WHICH ONE WORLD WILL
PRE COIN FLIP BRENT MEEKER BE IN AFTER THE COIN FLIP, THE HEADS WORLD
OR THE TAILS WORLD?_" IS A NONSENSICAL QUESTION BECAUSE BRENT MEEKER
WILL BE IN BOTH WORLDS.
_> Superdeterminism just says those things you think are inherently
random in QM are really determined by unknown initial conditions_
NO! SUPERDETERMINISM DOES NOT SAY ANY OLD STARTING CONDITION WILL
WORK, IT NEEDS ONE VERY PARTICULAR STARTING CONDITION, THE ONE THAT
WILL RESULT IN A UNIVERSE WHERE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD DOES NOT WORK
AND THUS EVENTUALLY PRODUCE GENERATIONS OF PHYSICISTS AND SCIENTISTS
IN GENERAL FORMING THEORIES THAT WILL BE COMPLETELY 100% DEAD WRONG.
AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T TOLD ME WHY YOU THINK
SUPERDETERMINISM IS A REASONABLE THEORY WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION
BUT THE DINOSAURS NEVER EXISTED THEORY IS NOT. I'M ASSUMING
YOU BELIEVE THAT DINOSAURS ONCE EXISTED, IF I'M WRONG ABOUT
THAT ASSUMPTION PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
_> I don't think it's a useful theory because it explains things in
terms of inaccessible initial conditions. _
YOU BELIEVE THAT IS NOT ALSO TRUE FOR SUPERDETERMINISM?! THE
DINOSAURS NEVER EXISTED THEORY IS CERTAINLY IDIOTC BUT, UNLIKE
SUPERDETERMINISM, AT LEAST IN IT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD STILL WORKS,
AND THUS IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE GEOLOGISTS FIGURE OUT
WHAT STRANGE NON-BIOLOGICAL FORCES MADE ALL THOSE ODD LOOKING ROCKS
THAT SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE MISINTERPRETED AS BEING THE BONES OF HUGE
REPTILES.
JOHN K CLARK SEE WHAT'S ON MY NEW LIST AT EXTROPOLIS [1]8b2
--
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/CAJPayv1t3q32VZ_YfRnQgw2axT2ow%3DhqNjAQ0co88RF6bptYxw%40mail.gmail.com
[2].
Links:
------
[1] https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis
[2]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1t3q32VZ_YfRnQgw2axT2ow%3DhqNjAQ0co88RF6bptYxw%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 visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c85c72c1bb5b4a820310efd369027c5a%40zonnet.nl.
