On 1/6/2025 6:03 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 5, 2025 at 7:47 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
*>> If Many World is correct then ontological randomness can not
exist but epistemological randomness certainly can and certainly
does.*
> /It's not just epistemological when it includes the whole world
whether anybody else knows it or not. /
*It includes a whole world, but if Schrodinger's equation is right and
it doesn't suddenly stop working when some vaguely defined thing
called a "measurement" is made then it's an ontological fact that our
world is not the sum total of existence. I like Many Worlds because
it's bare-bones, no nonsense quantum mechanics with none of the silly
bells and whistles tacked on that are needed to make those other
worlds disappear.*
/> QBism is actually an epistemological interpretation/
*Yes, and "shut up and calculate" doesn't care if it's ontological or
epistemological.*
*>>****you have to explain why Schrodinger's equation suddenly
stops working.*
//
/> You have to explain when the worlds split/
*As I've explained before, you can either assume that the split
propagates outward from the point of the change at the speed of light
or that it does soinstantaneously, it makes no observable difference. *
/
/
/> Measurement doesn't even have to include me or anybody else.
The cat example just obfuscates the question. The measurement is
done when the detector detects the atomic decay. A cleaner
version has a clock stopped by the detection. /
*OK. T**he quantum wave consists of { A* (a running clock, the
environment the running clock is in, and you observing the running
clock) + B*(a stopped*clock*, the environment the stopped clock is in,
and you observing the stopped clock) } Where A is a real number**and
B *is a* imaginary number*and together they *determine the quantum
amplitudes, and the square of the absolute value *of that *determines
the probability. For example if A=*1/*√2 and B= *1/*i√2 then the
probability is 50-50*.**A*nd if A= *1/*√0.75 and B=*i/*√**0.25 then
the probability works out to be 75-25; so if I hadn't opened the box
yet and was asked to make a bet on what I would see I would bet that I
would probably be in the environment that contains a running clock and
therefore will observe a running clock. *
*When I look at a map of branching universes in my mind's eye I like
to think of the quantum amplitudes giving a little thickness to those
2D lines making them a little bit 3-D, but that's just me. *
/> I can see that it will eventually make different orthogonal
worlds, only one of which we see. Carroll once joked that
non-Everettians needed to explain the disappearing worlds./
*Carroll was _NOT_ joking! You agree thatSchrodinger's Equation
produces worlds that are orthogonal to our own so you would not expect
to be able to detect them, and yet you insist, despite the fact that
in every experiment ever performed it is been proven to be
extraordinarily accurate, Schrodinger's Equation is wrong when it
predicts those other worlds. You just wave your hands and
Schrodinger's equation stops working and all those other worlds
magically disappear. *
*It's true that you can't make an experimental test for those worlds
but I think a theory should be judged on the predictions that you can
test not on the predictions that you can't test, and on every
prediction that we can test Schrodinger's equation has been shown to
be correct. *
I propose Meeker's equation, which is the same as Schrodinger's equation
except that the worlds orthogonal to our own disappear when they become
orthogonal. Meeker's equation has also shown to be correct by all known
tests.
**
>///branch counting doesn't work. /
*Obviously.*
/> It appears that the Born rule adds another axiom; it's *not*
just the Schroedinger equation./
*Gleason proved in 1957 that if probability is involved in any way
then the only mathematically consistent way to do it it's for the
probability to equal the squared magnitude of the quantum amplitude,
a.k.a. the Born rule. So the real question is, Schrodinger's equation
gives us an exact description of the quantum wave, so why do we need
probability at all? Because until you open the box you won't know if
you are in the environment where the cat is alive or in the
environment where the cat is dead, until the box is opened you just
don't have enough information to know for certain what you are going
to see, although you have enough information to have a probability. *
*As for cases where things are not perfectly orthogonal you'd expect
to see some interference between the two worlds, and WE DO for very
small objects like electrons which can be kept isolated from their
environment for a measurable amount of time, but we should not expect
to see interference patterns in large microscopic objects like a cat
that contains upwards of 10^24 atoms because something that big would
become entangled with the environment before you had time to look at it. *
*John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>*
42v
--
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/CAJPayv3fmrb-EDf-QojanL9AenKu%2BbZCdCB5TNmFhPdkNeKS9w%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3fmrb-EDf-QojanL9AenKu%2BbZCdCB5TNmFhPdkNeKS9w%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/d07f4a14-5fba-4eb5-9c03-2f06f5b38c79%40gmail.com.
