On 2/4/2025 11:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Brent,
You say that unrealized possibilities are what probabilities quantify,
but in a single-history framework, those possibilities never had any
existence beyond the formalism.
I don't know what "formalism" means in that context. When you calculate
probabilities of events in QM the events are not "formalisms". They are
implied by the same theories and mechanics that attributes possibility
to the events that were observed. And on other occasions they the
events that happen. So they are not mere formalism, their possibility
and probability are as real as the possibility and probability of the
observed events.
If only one history is real, then all other possibilities were never
actually possible in any meaningful way—they were never real
candidates for realization, just mathematical constructs. That’s not
an emotive argument; it’s pointing out that the entire notion of
probability in such a framework is detached from anything real.
If probability is supposed to quantify real possibilities, then in a
world where only one history exists for all eternity, what exactly is
being quantified? If an event with a calculated probability of 50%
never happens in this one history, then its true probability was
always 0%.
That's contrary to the meaning of probability. You are assuming
underlying determinism. You seem to conceive of probability as always
being 1 or 0, which is the same as denying the very concept of probability
Your framework claims to allow for multiple possibilities, but in
practice, it only ever realizes one, making the rest nothing more than
empty labels.
It's not "my framework", it's the theory of probability. I think you
are confused by the fact that probability theory has many applications.
You're stuck on the application to ignorance in a deterministic case.
But QM is not deterministic. The probabilities don't refer just to
ignorance. Just because there is a single world doesn't make it a
deterministic world. In fact MWI has more trouble representing
probabilities.
And you assert that alternatives have a "grounding in reality"—but
what does that mean in a framework where they never actually happen?
It means that the same theory that predicted the thing that happened
with probability 0.3, also predicted the thing that didn't happen with
probability 0.6 and this theory has been verified by finding that in
long strings of experiments the latter happens twice as often as the
former.
If they had a genuine grounding, they would have to be part of reality
in some form, even if only probabilistically.
I'm telling you they are part of reality probabilistically. What do you
mean by that phrase, if not what I've been saying?
But in a single-history framework, that never happens. The
probabilities exist only in the mind of the observer, with no external
ontological reality. They are tools that describe nothing but a
retrospective justification of what already happened.
Energy, moment, entropy, gravity...you could say that they are all just
tools in the mind of the physicist with no external ontological
reality. They are just terms in our mathematics.
The supposed "problem" in MWI—that all possibilities are
realized—actually solves this issue. It gives probabilities a real
basis in the structure of the universe rather than treating them as
abstract bookkeeping.
No, according to you they set all probabilities to 1.
The probabilities describe real distributions across real histories
rather than referring to things that were never real to begin with.
MWI doesn't distribute across histories. It asserts that all
possibilities occur in each event "with probability 1". That's why the
assignment of probabilities is a problem for MWI.
Brent
The single-world view wants to use probability while simultaneously
denying the existence of the things probability refers to. That’s not
just emotive talk—it’s a contradiction at the foundation of the framework.
Quentin
Le mar. 4 févr. 2025, 23:22, Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
On 2/4/2025 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
The fundamental absurdity of single-history frameworks becomes
clear when we consider the reliance on theoretical constructs
that, by definition, never exist and never will. How can one
justify using mathematical tools that invoke nonexistent
possibilities to explain a reality where only one sequence of
events is ever realized? If something never existed, has no
causal influence, and will never exist in any possible future,
how does it play any role in explaining what does exist?
This contradiction is evident in interpretations like Bohmian
mechanics, where the pilot wave guides particles but remains
completely unobservable and uninteractive beyond that role. It’s
an invisible, untouchable entity that affects matter but is never
affected in return—something that is functionally
indistinguishable from the pure abstractions of probability waves
in a single-world interpretation. In both cases, explanations
rely on constructs that have no true existence beyond their
mathematical form.
A single-history universe that leans on unrealized possibilities
to justify probability
"Justify"?? Unrealized possibilities are what probabilities
quantify. If all possibilities were realized the wouldn't have
probabilities assigned to them...exactly the problem that arises
in MWI.
is making an implicit appeal to something that doesn’t and will
never exist. It treats the wavefunction as a real tool for
calculating outcomes while simultaneously denying that the
alternatives it describes have any grounding in reality. This is
the absurdity: how can something that never existed be part of an
explanation for what does?
That is just a lot of emotive talk. All the alternatives have a
"grounding in reality"; that's what makes the possibilities with
definite probabilities.
Brent
In contrast, in a many-worlds framework, all possibilities exist
and are real branches of the wavefunction, providing an actual
basis for probability. The probabilities are not just
mathematical conveniences; they describe distributions of real
outcomes across real histories. This removes the need for
metaphysical hand-waving about non-existent possibilities
influencing reality.
If physics is about describing reality, then relying on things
that are, by construction, eternally non-existent to justify
observed phenomena is conceptually incoherent. It is an attempt
to have it both ways—to use abstract possibilities when
convenient while denying their reality when inconvenient. That
contradiction is why single-history frameworks ultimately fail to
provide a satisfying foundation for probability and existence itself.
Quentin
Le mar. 4 févr. 2025, 19:03, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 12:56 PM 'spudboy...@aol.com' via
Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
/> Bohmian mechanics v Everett-DeWiit-Wheeler? /
/For Carroll, it probably means they're the same.
Indistinguishable. /
*This is what I said about that about a month ago:*
*Pilot Wave Theory keeps Schrodinger's Equation but needs to
add another entirely new very complicated equation called the
Pilot Wave Equation that contains non-local variables. When
an electron enters the two slit experiment the Pilot Wave in
effect produces a little arrow pointing to one of the
electrons with the caption under it saying "/this is the real
electron, ignore all the other ones/". The Pilot Wave does
absolutely nothing except erase unwanted universes, it is for
this reason that some have called Pilot Wave theory theMany
Worlds theory in denial. *
*
*
*The Pilot Wave is unique in another way, it can affect
matter but matter cannot affect it, if it's real it would be
the first time in the history of physics where an exception
to Newton's credo that for every action there is a reaction;
even after the object it is pointing to is destroyed the
pilot wave continues on, although now it is pointing at
nothing and has no further effect on anything in the
universe. Also, nobody has ever been able to make a
relativistic version of the Pilot Wave Equation.Paul
diracfound a version of Schrodinger's Equation that was
compatible with special relativity as early as 1927. *
*
*
*John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>*
8b0
**
--
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/CAJPayv3JL9f40jD-4qG0ry6z38ZtVysrh9RhE%2BDirJrSWzaX-w%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3JL9f40jD-4qG0ry6z38ZtVysrh9RhE%2BDirJrSWzaX-w%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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAopDs_qGcSEgaZJdrDUu7qgMzWgvNbE4EPFgw5pxRBQcA%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAopDs_qGcSEgaZJdrDUu7qgMzWgvNbE4EPFgw5pxRBQcA%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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ab8b9168-9459-476b-9b9b-930c6763289a%40gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ab8b9168-9459-476b-9b9b-930c6763289a%40gmail.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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAp7UGDVrCzGRnrucy%3DzYRUgOM0-o1X7Vhs1j6c5GVQygg%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAp7UGDVrCzGRnrucy%3DzYRUgOM0-o1X7Vhs1j6c5GVQygg%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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/23bf8e7f-645e-4f5e-a056-b3fc200a958c%40gmail.com.
