@Alan. "Existence" is synonymous with "consciousness", so particles cannot come into existence.
On Sunday, 5 January 2025 at 15:11:05 UTC+2 Alan Grayson wrote: > On Sunday, January 5, 2025 at 5:47:13 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Sunday, January 5, 2025 at 12:45:54 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Saturday, January 4, 2025 at 8:06:38 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Saturday, January 4, 2025 at 2:11:02 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Saturday, January 4, 2025 at 1:46:26 PM UTC-7 John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2025 at 10:00 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > *> Moderation is inappropriate where Trump physics is endorsed. AG * > > > *About a month ago Sean Carroll uploaded a very good video explaining the > Many Worlds theory, but it's over an hour long so I know there's about as > much chance of a dilettante such as yourself of actually watching it is > there is of you reading a post of mine if it's longer than about 100 words. > * > > *The Many Worlds of Quantum Mechanics | Dr. Sean Carroll > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTmxIUz21bo&t=8s> * > > *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* > > > *Sure, I'll watch it. But I am still waiting for your reply to my > question, posed around 10 times, why, based on S's equation, every thing > that can happen, MUST HAPPEN. And please don't offer your BS that you've > answered it repeatedly. Such a claim would be blatent lie. Finally, I know > what you haven't offered the answer. It's really simple. You don't want to > admit the Emperor has no clothes, as such an admission might trigger a > coronary when you realize you've been preaching a lie these many years. AG * > > > *I watched it. I can't say I fully understand it or believe it. I'll > probably watch it again. I do know that lately I am less impressed with the > cat experiment, as I recall a recent comment by Brent; that there's no > operator which has Alive and Dead as its eigenvalues. This, IMO, means that > the cat's wf isn't a valid quantum wf. AG * > > > *If the cat's wf isn't a valid wf in QM, which is now my belief, does the > same apply to Decayed and Undecayed? That is, what is the operator which > has Decayed and Undecayed as it eigenvalues? AG* > > *Another question relates to the superposition which involves the > Environment. Carroll claims the observer is contained in this superposition > as part of the Environment without experience it's in such a state. Is this > the origin of the Many Worlds in the MWI? If so, this seems independent of > S's equation, and follows directly from the quantum definition of the wf as > a linear sum of eigenvalues. AG * > > > *Oddly, after viewing Carroll's video, I can't recall where he argued > that S's equation implies the MWI. I recall he spoke about decoherence, but > where did he specifically argue for the MWI? TY, AG* > > > *I just looked again at Carroll's video. He claims worlds come into > existence by the decay of radioactive atoms. How is this related to S's > equation? A lot of other stuff he claims seems murky at best, like the > energy "thining" of branches. 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/89e08f16-2401-4c95-bf7f-fe05ea9074bbn%40googlegroups.com.
