Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

[Philip Thrift]

Sean (and some other physicists) do not think either that that matter 
exists, or  that it is what reality is made of. 

Or, they will say it (matter) exists, but it is defined in terms of 
information: 

Information (not matter) is what reality is made of.

If matter can be continually created in an infinitely branching process (as 
information can multiply at no cost), then Many Worlds are fine.

@philipthirift

On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 9:51:09 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> A standard objection to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum 
> mechanics concerns energy conservation. When the universe splits on some 
> quantum event and a new branch(world) is created, where does the energy 
> come from? 
>
> Sean Carroll tackles this question on page 173 of his new book. But I am 
> not convinced that he gives a convincing answer. Basically, he says that 
> since the universe as a whole evolves according to the Schrödinger 
> equation, this unitary evolution conserves energy. He goes on: 
> "Not all worlds are created equal. Think about the wave function. When 
> it describes multiple branched worlds, we can calculate the total amount 
> of energy by adding up the amount of energy in each world, times the 
> weight (the amplitude squared) for that world. When one world divides in 
> two, the energy in each world is basically the same as it previously was 
> in the single world (as far as anyone living in it is concerned), but 
> their contributions to the total energy of the wave function of the 
> universe have divided in half, since their amplitudes have decreased. 
> Each world got a bit thinner, although its inhabitants can't tell any 
> difference." 
>
> I see some problems here. One is that the total number of branches in 
> the branching wave function is continually increasing, and the number of 
> branches is not well defined -- indefinite even if not actually 
> infinite. So the energy in each branch is effectively zero, unless we 
> renormalize or something on each split. The second worry is that taken 
> at fact value, multiplying the energy by the weight of each branch on a 
> split would mean that if we have a Stern-Gerlach measurement of spin, or 
> a photon on a half silvered mirror, the weights of each of the two new 
> branches is one half, so the energy of the photon that is reflected off 
> my half-silvered mirror should be one-half the energy of the incident 
> photon. The other half of the energy has gone to the photon (in another 
> world) that was transmitted. This is not what is seen, and contradicts 
> the assertion that energy is conserved in each branch. If new branches 
> are continually forming out of any branch, there is no way the energy 
> could be conserved without it being obvious to the observer of the 
> photon incident on the half-silvered mirror. (Or is any other quantum 
> interaction.) As any world branches, energy cannot be conserved without 
> it being obvious along any decohered history. 
>
> Carroll given another example; "I have, say, a bowling ball, with a 
> certain mass and potential energy. But then someone in the next room 
> observes a quantum spin and branches the wave function. Now there are 
> two bowling balls, each of which has the energy of the previous one. 
> No?" He answers: "That ignores the amplitudes of the branches. The 
> contribution of the bowling ball to the energy of the universe isn't 
> just the mass and the potential energy of the ball; it's that, times the 
> weight of its branch  of the wave function. After the splitting it looks 
> like you have two bowling balls, but together they contribute exactly as 
> much to the energy of the wave function as the single bowling ball did 
> before." 
>
> Clearly, when the split is due to a quantum  event in another room, you 
> are not aware of the split and of the sudden reduction of the 
> mass-energy of everything around you. So you could get away with that by 
> a simple renormalization. But if you are observing the atom in the S-G 
> magnet, how does this approach avoid the conclusion that you would have 
> to see its energy halve? I do not think that locutions about the energy 
> of the wave function of the universe being conserved, and branches 
> decreasing in energy by their Born weights, are actually going to avoid 
> the problem of accounting for energy conservation, as observed in each 
> continuing branch. 
>
> It seems to me that the best one can do is say that energy is conserved 
> in each branch, even over splitting. That is, after all, what is 
> observed. Consequently, the energy of the overall wave function is not 
> conserved. This might cause some problems for the insistence on unitary 
> evolution of the wave function as a whole... 
>
> Bruce 
>
>

-- 
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-li

Re: Stochastic spacetime

[Philip Thrift]

On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:03:05 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> These ideas run into an empirical problem. As I have indicated before, 
> data on the arrival times of photons of different wavelengths from burstars 
> indicates spacetime is incredibly smooth. It is smoother than the Planck 
> scale by 1:50. There is no foam, graininess or discontinuous properties at 
> all. Nottale scale relativity implies there is a fractal structure to 
> spacetime that defines different properties at different scales. What is 
> found empirically is nothing of the sort; spacetime has no preferred 
> structure on any scale. It is smooth. 
>
> What may be happening has possible connections to many body theory. Many 
> body theory has these domains of regular dynamical solutions, which can be 
> fairly robust against perturbations, within a larger "sea" of chaos. 
> Quantum physics can exhibit a form of fractal dynamics in scarring of wave 
> function, or where the destructive and constructive interference of a wave 
> can become deformed into filigree. Quantum mechanics though abhors 
> nonlinearity in actual wave functions. General relativity on the other hand 
> is C^∞, so far as I can tell, and so completely smooth. Though there may 
> not be actual fractal structure to spacetime, it is plausible that 
> spacetime can exhibit topology changes that have correspondences with 
> turbulent hydrodynamics. So if quantum mechanics is linear with a form of 
> fractal structure this should exist in different Fourier modes for 
> different spatial configurations. Yet this may only correspond to separable 
> states off the entanglement or entropy surface of a coherent or condensate 
> of states that have classical correspondence.
>
> LC
>
>
>


Regarding stochastic spacetime defined in terms of stochastic metric 
spaces, there is no fundamental fractalness or foaminess involved that I 
can see.

*Stochastic metric space and quantum mechanics*
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/aaa851/meta


*From the stochastic metrical point of view, the distance between two 
points (the proton and electron positions) is given as a stochastic 
variable. When distances are given stochastically, their distribution must 
be Gaussian following the central limit theorem, variance of the distance 
possibly be proportional to distance.  *


@philipthrift

-- 
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 on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/46c5a315-158c-4988-b46b-4508dace4ba5%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

['scerir' via Everything List]

It seems to me that the best one can do is say that energy is conserved in each 
branch, even over splitting. That is, after all, what is observed. 
Consequently, the energy of the overall wave function is not conserved. This 
might cause some problems for the insistence on unitary evolution of the wave 
function as a whole... 
Bruce

The principle of conservation of energy, in MWI, seems obscure to me, at least.

"In more general cases, where there are superpositions of states of different 
energy, energy can increase in one universe at the cost of decreasing in 
another." -David Deutsch 
 
"Now, there isn't really a story to tell about what the total energy in 
individual universes is during that whole process [of measurement]. Because the 
universes are not autonomous during it. But one thing's for sure, there is no 
way of construing it so that the energy in each particular universe is 
conserved, for the simple reason that the whole system starts out the same on 
each run of the experiment (before the non-sharp state is created), and ends up 
different". -David Deutsch

-- 
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 on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/137502699.320898.1574836623152%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/26/2019 7:51 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
A standard objection to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum 
mechanics concerns energy conservation. When the universe splits on 
some quantum event and a new branch(world) is created, where does the 
energy come from?


Sean Carroll tackles this question on page 173 of his new book. But I 
am not convinced that he gives a convincing answer. Basically, he says 
that since the universe as a whole evolves according to the 
Schrödinger equation, this unitary evolution conserves energy. He goes 
on:
"Not all worlds are created equal. Think about the wave function. When 
it describes multiple branched worlds, we can calculate the total 
amount of energy by adding up the amount of energy in each world, 
times the weight (the amplitude squared) for that world. When one 
world divides in two, the energy in each world is basically the same 
as it previously was in the single world (as far as anyone living in 
it is concerned), but their contributions to the total energy of the 
wave function of the universe have divided in half, since their 
amplitudes have decreased. Each world got a bit thinner, although its 
inhabitants can't tell any difference."


I see some problems here. One is that the total number of branches in 
the branching wave function is continually increasing, and the number 
of branches is not well defined -- indefinite even if not actually 
infinite. 


For radioactive decay the split is a continuum of "events".

So the energy in each branch is effectively zero, unless we 
renormalize or something on each split. The second worry is that taken 
at fact value, multiplying the energy by the weight of each branch on 
a split would mean that if we have a Stern-Gerlach measurement of 
spin, or a photon on a half silvered mirror, the weights of each of 
the two new branches is one half, so the energy of the photon that is 
reflected off my half-silvered mirror should be one-half the energy of 
the incident photon. The other half of the energy has gone to the 
photon (in another world) that was transmitted. This is not what is 
seen, and contradicts the assertion that energy is conserved in each 
branch. 


Is it?  If you measured the momentum change of the mirror due to the 
photon, you would find it was either zero (transmitted) or h/f 
(reflected).  Of course you would also have welcher weg information.


If new branches are continually forming out of any branch, there is no 
way the energy could be conserved without it being obvious to the 
observer of the photon incident on the half-silvered mirror. (Or is 
any other quantum interaction.) As any world branches, energy cannot 
be conserved without it being obvious along any decohered history.


Carroll given another example; "I have, say, a bowling ball, with a 
certain mass and potential energy. But then someone in the next room 
observes a quantum spin and branches the wave function. 


The other room?  How about Alpha Centari?   Or another galaxy?  In fact 
the lesson the C60 buckyball experiment is that there doesn't have to be 
anyone measuring anything.  All that's needed is decoherence into the 
environment and you and the rest of the universe have split.


Now there are two bowling balls, each of which has the energy of the 
previous one. No?" He answers: "That ignores the amplitudes of the 
branches. The contribution of the bowling ball to the energy of the 
universe isn't just the mass and the potential energy of the ball; 
it's that, times the weight of its branch  of the wave function. After 
the splitting it looks like you have two bowling balls, but together 
they contribute exactly as much to the energy of the wave function as 
the single bowling ball did before."


Clearly, when the split is due to a quantum  event in another room, 
you are not aware of the split and of the sudden reduction of the 
mass-energy of everything around you. So you could get away with that 
by a simple renormalization. But if you are observing the atom in the 
S-G magnet, how does this approach avoid the conclusion that you would 
have to see its energy halve? 


How you would see it.  The act of observing it splits you too.

Brent

I do not think that locutions about the energy of the wave function of 
the universe being conserved, and branches decreasing in energy by 
their Born weights, are actually going to avoid the problem of 
accounting for energy conservation, as observed in each continuing 
branch.


It seems to me that the best one can do is say that energy is 
conserved in each branch, even over splitting. That is, after all, 
what is observed. Consequently, the energy of the overall wave 
function is not conserved. This might cause some problems for the 
insistence on unitary evolution of the wave function as a 
whole...


Bruce




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving em

Energy conservation in many-worlds

[Bruce Kellett]

A standard objection to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum 
mechanics concerns energy conservation. When the universe splits on some 
quantum event and a new branch(world) is created, where does the energy 
come from?


Sean Carroll tackles this question on page 173 of his new book. But I am 
not convinced that he gives a convincing answer. Basically, he says that 
since the universe as a whole evolves according to the Schrödinger 
equation, this unitary evolution conserves energy. He goes on:
"Not all worlds are created equal. Think about the wave function. When 
it describes multiple branched worlds, we can calculate the total amount 
of energy by adding up the amount of energy in each world, times the 
weight (the amplitude squared) for that world. When one world divides in 
two, the energy in each world is basically the same as it previously was 
in the single world (as far as anyone living in it is concerned), but 
their contributions to the total energy of the wave function of the 
universe have divided in half, since their amplitudes have decreased. 
Each world got a bit thinner, although its inhabitants can't tell any 
difference."


I see some problems here. One is that the total number of branches in 
the branching wave function is continually increasing, and the number of 
branches is not well defined -- indefinite even if not actually 
infinite. So the energy in each branch is effectively zero, unless we 
renormalize or something on each split. The second worry is that taken 
at fact value, multiplying the energy by the weight of each branch on a 
split would mean that if we have a Stern-Gerlach measurement of spin, or 
a photon on a half silvered mirror, the weights of each of the two new 
branches is one half, so the energy of the photon that is reflected off 
my half-silvered mirror should be one-half the energy of the incident 
photon. The other half of the energy has gone to the photon (in another 
world) that was transmitted. This is not what is seen, and contradicts 
the assertion that energy is conserved in each branch. If new branches 
are continually forming out of any branch, there is no way the energy 
could be conserved without it being obvious to the observer of the 
photon incident on the half-silvered mirror. (Or is any other quantum 
interaction.) As any world branches, energy cannot be conserved without 
it being obvious along any decohered history.


Carroll given another example; "I have, say, a bowling ball, with a 
certain mass and potential energy. But then someone in the next room 
observes a quantum spin and branches the wave function. Now there are 
two bowling balls, each of which has the energy of the previous one. 
No?" He answers: "That ignores the amplitudes of the branches. The 
contribution of the bowling ball to the energy of the universe isn't 
just the mass and the potential energy of the ball; it's that, times the 
weight of its branch  of the wave function. After the splitting it looks 
like you have two bowling balls, but together they contribute exactly as 
much to the energy of the wave function as the single bowling ball did 
before."


Clearly, when the split is due to a quantum  event in another room, you 
are not aware of the split and of the sudden reduction of the 
mass-energy of everything around you. So you could get away with that by 
a simple renormalization. But if you are observing the atom in the S-G 
magnet, how does this approach avoid the conclusion that you would have 
to see its energy halve? I do not think that locutions about the energy 
of the wave function of the universe being conserved, and branches 
decreasing in energy by their Born weights, are actually going to avoid 
the problem of accounting for energy conservation, as observed in each 
continuing branch.


It seems to me that the best one can do is say that energy is conserved 
in each branch, even over splitting. That is, after all, what is 
observed. Consequently, the energy of the overall wave function is not 
conserved. This might cause some problems for the insistence on unitary 
evolution of the wave function as a whole...


Bruce

--
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 on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3f332e81-c5e5-c4cf-5b48-38f8b5c35c86%40optusnet.com.au.

Re: Stochastic spacetime

[Lawrence Crowell]

These ideas run into an empirical problem. As I have indicated before, data 
on the arrival times of photons of different wavelengths from burstars 
indicates spacetime is incredibly smooth. It is smoother than the Planck 
scale by 1:50. There is no foam, graininess or discontinuous properties at 
all. Nottale scale relativity implies there is a fractal structure to 
spacetime that defines different properties at different scales. What is 
found empirically is nothing of the sort; spacetime has no preferred 
structure on any scale. It is smooth. 

What may be happening has possible connections to many body theory. Many 
body theory has these domains of regular dynamical solutions, which can be 
fairly robust against perturbations, within a larger "sea" of chaos. 
Quantum physics can exhibit a form of fractal dynamics in scarring of wave 
function, or where the destructive and constructive interference of a wave 
can become deformed into filigree. Quantum mechanics though abhors 
nonlinearity in actual wave functions. General relativity on the other hand 
is C^∞, so far as I can tell, and so completely smooth. Though there may 
not be actual fractal structure to spacetime, it is plausible that 
spacetime can exhibit topology changes that have correspondences with 
turbulent hydrodynamics. So if quantum mechanics is linear with a form of 
fractal structure this should exist in different Fourier modes for 
different spatial configurations. Yet this may only correspond to separable 
states off the entanglement or entropy surface of a coherent or condensate 
of states that have classical correspondence.

LC

On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 4:34:04 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> *Dimensional flow and fuzziness in quantum gravity: emergence of 
> stochastic spacetime*
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.02159
>
> *Stochastic space interval as a link between quantum randomness and 
> macroscopic randomness?*
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437117310725
>
> *A Universe Made of Tiny, Random Chunks*
> (The space-time that makes up our universe is inherently uncertain.)
> http://nautil.us/issue/2/uncertainty/a-universe-made-of-tiny-random-chunks
>
> @philipthrift
>

-- 
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 on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a81b9e48-72cf-426f-b4fb-6f5dc3c0ca65%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The problem with physics

[Bruce Kellett]

On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 11:04 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 20 Nov 2019, at 14:51, John Clark  wrote:
>
>
> "*R**ealism is "counterfactual definiteness", the idea that it is
> possible to meaningfully describe as definite the result of a measurement
> which, in fact, has not been performed (i.e. the ability to assume the
> existence of objects, and assign values to their properties, even when they
> have not been measured)*.
>
>
> Yes, that is Einstein’s physical realism. It is implied by Mechanism. It
> should not be confused with physicalism, which assumes that the only
> explanation of physical realism is that there is a primary (irreducible)
> physical reality. With mechanism, the physical realism is entailed by the
> fact that nobody can change the relative measure on all computations in
> arithmetic, no more than changing the value of 666.
> The arithmetical reality makes the physical and statistical
> “counterfactual definiteness” as solid as 2+2=4, or Ex(x+2=4), without any
> need of an ontological commitment on some “universe” or “matter”.
>

Quantum mechanics itself is not counterfactually definite. Einstein was
wrong about this. A free electron is described by a wave packet which is a
superposition of states of definite momentum and position. There is no
actual "position" for the electron until it interacts with a screen or some
similar device. This is demonstrated by simple two-slit interference. There
is no pre-existing position, unless you want to embrace Bohm's pilot wave
theory, in which the electron does have a definite, though unknown,
position at all times.

Bruce

-- 
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 on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQQ2rw2tKKnVfrmObYa8F5SMcREaHUwU%3D2UFsSMuKx4LQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Branching on real-world decisions

[Bruce Kellett]

On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 12:27 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 25 Nov 2019, at 22:53, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
> Because, the wave-function itself is non-local -- it contains entangled
> particles that are widely separated in space. That is the definition of
> non-locality!
>
>
> I am not sure. I use “non-locality” for “FTL physical influence”.
>

That is just an abuse of language. Non-local means "not local", i.e., not
all in one place. Some attempt has been made to replace the term
"non-local" with the term "non-seperable". I think we can all agree that
the singlet wave function is non-separable -- it cannot be written as a
simple product of two terms, one referring to each particle. I maintain
that it is also non-local, in that the two particles are at different
locations (locales). Non-local can have no other meaning in ordinary
linguistic usage.

> In the MWI, some particles can be entangled but without implying any
> possible FTL when we do measurement on them, except from the local point of
> view, due to our ignorance of all terms of the wave. It means simply that
> Alice and Bob belongs to the same branch of history/reality.
>

The trouble with this hope is that it no local account of the EPR
correlations been realised in any coherent mathematics. Bell's theorem
rules it out: no local hidden variable account of the EPR correlations is
possible in any theory, whatsoever. It is a no-go theorem; it proves a
negative -- something is impossible. Many-worlds does not subvert Bell's
theorem.

I think it is becoming generally accepted in the physics community that the
entangled state is intrinsically non-local: acting on one part of it
affects the rest, even across the entire universe.

Bruce

-- 
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 on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQTKY-QPga0OdXQgTnJ1ftzudC_yU4cw9ELo1LmMKwYRQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The problem with physics

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/26/2019 4:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 21 Nov 2019, at 18:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:


The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to  
interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a 
mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal  
interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of  
such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is  
expected to work.

    --—John von Neumann


That is instrumentalism. It does not work as von Neumann eventually 
understood. That is why he defended the idea that consciousness reduce 
the wf.


Which the buckyball Young's slit experiment shows not to work.  So von 
Neumann would have abandoned that idea.


Brent

--
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 on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3ffc078a-05a2-f91b-1534-a1ab70025661%40verizon.net.

Re: The problem with physics

[John Clark]

On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 7:11 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> in Bruno's idiotic
>
>

> *> The insult again. *
>

The observation again.

>> thought exparament because there is no way to determine who won and who
>> lost or even nail down exactly what the bet was about,
>
>
> *> No less than in the Everett theory.*
>

In Everett's theory it's easy to specify exactly what the bet is about
because after its all over it's clear who has won, there is only one person
that even comes forward and claims to have won. This is because there is
only one person around who has inherited the grand title of "you". None of
that is true with Bruno Marchal's "theory" or in the thought experiment
that attempts to prove it; and nobody can make a bet if nobody can pin down
exactly what the bet is suposed to be about.

>> but the situation is quite different with the MWI because it's
>> unambiguous what the bet was about and there is no one around to dispute
>> the outcome.
>
>
>
> *> That is not relevant for the prediction on the first person experience,
> *
>

It sure as hell is relevant when you make a bet! You can't go to your
bookie after the race and just say "In my mind's eye my horse won" and
expect to collect your winnings from him. And if that wasn't bad enough in
Bruno Marchal's thought experiment there is no such thing as *THE* first
person experience.


> > *You can make the WM thought experience with Robots*
>

How is replacing people with Robots suposed to rescue your drowning
theory?  If you do then in the WM thought experiment only one Robot will
claim to have won, but in your thought experiment a gaggle of Robots will
come forward all with equally valid claims to have won and you're right
back in the ridiculous position you were before.

 John K Clark

-- 
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 on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0GP7-j45QvM5Ybup%3D2GBF75q1gBR02fbYanJ3Xye2PcQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The problem with physics

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Nov 2019, at 20:41, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 9:08:49 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 19 Nov 2019, at 16:48, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> In my own formulation 
>> 
>>Program
>>Language
>>Translation
>>Object
>>Substrate
>> 
>> I could identify Substrate with Model (in the mathematical logic sense).
> 
> With Mechanism, the substrate are described by the Models of the Material 
> hypotases: the very object of the number’s dream. It is not an illusion, but 
> it is something emerging from the arithmetical reality.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Substrate is made of Dreams of Numbers is, well, dreamy.

Indeed, as it is manifested only through experience, and this thanks to the 
work of some digital machine(s) (maybe run by some analogous machine, that 
remains possible and is perhaps necessary to get rid of the aberrant histories).

But dreams are well defined number relations. The concept of dreams is not 
dreamy. 

Bruno



> 
> @philipthrift 
> 
> -- 
> 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 on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0d8da646-97c2-42f4-81b7-20814d146b45%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CFDB088C-C8A1-4985-B880-750CEBF2C042%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Branching on real-world decisions

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Nov 2019, at 22:53, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 1:31 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> > On 22 Nov 2019, at 08:35, Bruce Kellett  > > wrote:
> > 
> > I have been reading Sean Carroll's book "Something Deeply Hidden". It is 
> > more reasonable than some of the commentary had led me to believe. The 
> > issue at the moment is whether or not all things happen in the quantum 
> > multiverse. I argued that just because I might turn left at some point, it 
> > does not follow from Many-Worlds QM that in some other world I turn right.
> 
> Absolutely. That follows directly from the Schroedinger equation. That is why 
> we take life instead of jumping out of the window! On the contrary the 
> linearity and decoherence assures us that when we take a decision, we acts 
> similarly in all universe, unless the decision use a quantum coin of course. 
> 
> 
> > Carroll agrees with this, despite some reports to the contrary. On page 214 
> > he says "No, you do not cause the wave function to branch by making a 
> > decision Branching is the result of a microscopic process amplified to 
> > macroscopic scales: a system in a quantum superposition becomes entangled 
> > with the environment, leading to decoherence. A decision, on the other 
> > hand, is a purely macroscopic phenomenon. There are no decisions being made 
> > by the electrons and atoms inside your brain; they're just obeying the laws 
> > of physics.”
> 
> OK.  Of course, we can branch if we desire to do so, like deciding to take 
> the holiday in the North or in the south by untangling that decision with a 
> quantum coin. 
> 
> > 
> > So there is not a coy of me in some other branch that is typing a 
> > completely different email at this moment.
> > 
> > Carroll also says sensible things about quantum suicide and other moral 
> > issues.
> > 
> > I was, as Brent also reported, a little surprised by his argument that it 
> > didn't really matter whether you thought of the splitting of the wave 
> > function/universe on a decohered quantum event as spreading at light speed, 
> > or as instantaneous throughout the entire universe. (pp. 170-171). I think 
> > this reflects the fact that Carroll does not seem to be as opposed to the 
> > idea of non-locality as are other advocates of many worlds. However, he 
> > does seem to think that the fact that outcomes of experiments are not 
> > unique in many-worlds does deflect the impact of Bell's theorem in that 
> > theory. "That doesn't mean that Bell's theorem is wrong in Many-Worlds; 
> > mathematical theorems are unambiguously right. It just means that the 
> > theorem doesn't apply. Bell's result does not imply that we have to include 
> > spooky action at a distance in Everettian quantum mechanics, as it does  
> > for boring old single-world theories. The correlations don't come about 
> > because of any kind of influence being transmitted faster than light, but 
> > because of branching of the wave function into different worlds, in which 
> > correlated things happen." (p. 105)
> 
> I agree with Carroll. I guess you don’t ...
> 
> No, as I say. One problem is that his stance on decoherence spreading 
> instantaneously is at variance with his rejection of Bell non-locality. 

Yes, that is weird.



> Actually, Carroll's ambivalence towards non-locality is even more evident in 
> the latter part of his book, where he attempts to find space-time emerging 
> from entanglement. He has to acknowledge that entanglement is intrinsically 
> non-local, in that it mixes the wave function at one point with that at 
> another. And the points that are entangled act as a unit, even though widely 
> separated -- with no intervening physical processes.
> 
> On page 233, he distinguishes between two senses of "locality": what we might 
> call 'measurement locality' and 'dynamical locality'. The EPR thought 
> experiment shows that there is something that seems non-local about quantum 
> measurement. ... Whether many-worlds is non-local in this sense depends on 
> how we choose to define our branches of the wave function: we're allowed to 
> make either local or non-local choices, where branching happens only nearby 
> or immediately throughout space.
>   Dynamical locality, on the other hand, refers to the smooth evolution of 
> the quantum state when no measurement or branching is happeningThis kind 
> of locality is enforced by the rule in special relativity that nothing can 
> travel faster than light. And it's this dynamical locality that we're 
> concerned with at the moment as we study the nature and emergence of space 
> itself." (p. 233)
> 
> I think this whole section is rather confused and this is little more than 
> sophistry. Sean is trying to cover up what is really a glaring inconsistency 
> in his approach. Maybe more work will enable one to make a bit more sense of 
> this……

Let us hope. I still don’t see any

Re: C60 Interference

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 12:10:26 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 11:01:17 AM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/17/2019 11:07 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>> > 
>> > I forget if I raised this issue here or on another thread. I am 
>> > beginning to doubt that isolation is possible. When a particle is 
>> > created, how can it be isolated from the environment? If it cannot be 
>> > isolated, if it's never really isolated, the decoherence model fails 
>> > to establish anything. AG 
>>
>> Interactions are quantized like everything else.  There's smallest unit 
>> of action, h.  So if the interaction is less than this it's zero.  So it 
>> is possible to isolate variables. 
>>
>> Brent 
>>
>
> But if, say, a particle is created by some process, won't it be entangled 
> with the causal entities defining the process and therefore be initially, 
> and forever, non-isolated? AG 
>

If that's too hot to handle, try this: if we write the standard 
superposition of a decayed or undecayed radioactive atom, is there any 
inherent problem with interpreting this superposition to mean it has a 
probability to be in one state or the other by applying Born's rule to each 
amplitude? Why did this interpretation apparently fall to the wayside, and 
was substituted for the baffling interpretation of the system being in both 
states simultaneously? 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/66da1b4c-0ba0-4a75-9fa4-381e1793a169%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The problem with physics

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Nov 2019, at 09:09, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> Well... maybe when you are a 50 years old scientist, you can say that, but 
> this is not the spirit in which science is teached to children or popularized 
> to laymen. The spirit of science popularization is that it gives us the 
> truth, and we should obey or die. If scientists are such moral people, then 
> why they don't tell to their students in the first class of their course that 
> they will only present to them a model ? Instead, they jump right in: "Space 
> is such-and-such, time is such-and-such.". I never heard any professor of 
> mine telling us that they are only presenting us models.

Some do, but are rare. The problem is the implicit confusion between physics 
and metaphysics/theology make by the weak-materialist (the belief in some 
irreducible matter). In physics that is not important, like the switch to 
instrumentalism often made illustrate, but in metaphysics/theology, that 
distinction is crucial.

Bruno 



> 
> On Thursday, 21 November 2019 19:23:27 UTC+2, Brent wrote:
> The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to  interpret, they 
> mainly make models. By a model is meant a  mathematical construct which, with 
> the addition of certain verbal  interpretations, describes observed 
> phenomena. The justification of  such a mathematical construct is solely and 
> precisely that it is  expected to work.
> --—John von Neumann
> 
> -- 
> 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 on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0820104a-969a-45d5-989e-36c6ed0e6d29%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2CB891C8-C9E4-479A-9D2C-FD3A70E4846D%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: The problem with physics

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 21 Nov 2019, at 18:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to  interpret, they 
> mainly make models. By a model is meant a  mathematical construct which, with 
> the addition of certain verbal  interpretations, describes observed 
> phenomena. The justification of  such a mathematical construct is solely and 
> precisely that it is  expected to work.
> --—John von Neumann

That is instrumentalism. It does not work as von Neumann eventually understood. 
That is why he defended the idea that consciousness reduce the wf.

Bruno




> 
> On 11/21/2019 12:31 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>> What are the models the models of if not of truth ? If models are not 
>> intended to model truth, then what are they intended to do ? Create a 
>> fantastical world for World of Warcraft ?
>> 
>> On Friday, 15 November 2019 02:03:14 UTC+2, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> But good luck in life finding the absolute truth! Let us know when you find 
>> it.
>> 
>> @philipthrift  
>> -- 
>> 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 on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ccb001b8-6faa-4ecf-a980-79a39d91c919%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bbcb0bd7-d50b-c8bd-1596-f3e92441429d%40verizon.net
>  
> .

-- 
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 on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/93D460A7-42B1-49EC-8625-63EC95DD1810%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: The problem with physics

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 21 Nov 2019, at 09:54, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Models are the myths we invent to navigate nature (reality).


Theories are such “myth” (using the logician’s terminology). We need them to do 
anything.

The intended model of those theories is the reality, that we search. We don’t 
know if nature is a part of it, but we can guess it plays some role in it.

Bruno



> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 2:31:09 AM UTC-6, Cosmin Visan wrote:
> What are the models the models of if not of truth ? If models are not 
> intended to model truth, then what are they intended to do ? Create a 
> fantastical world for World of Warcraft ?
> 
> On Friday, 15 November 2019 02:03:14 UTC+2, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> But good luck in life finding the absolute truth! Let us know when you find 
> it.
> 
> @philipthrift  
> 
> -- 
> 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 on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7773c01c-caa2-4bfe-ae82-5a523831c293%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9F1256B2-FE85-4F87-BA49-353197B81C36%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: The problem with physics

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 21 Nov 2019, at 00:28, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 3:00:35 PM UTC-7, scerir wrote:
>> Nevertheless, the SWE does not give a probability without some further 
>> assumptions. Why do you think that MWI advocates spend so much time an 
>> effort trying to derive the Born rule? You cannot get probabilities from the 
>> Schroedinger equation without some additional assumptions.
>> 
>> Bruce
> In his Nobel lecture (The statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics, 
> 1954)
> Born writes: "Again an idea of Einstein’s gave me the lead. He had tried to 
> make the duality of particles - light quanta or photons - and waves 
> comprehensible by interpreting the square of the optical wave amplitudes as 
> probability density for the occurrence of photons. This concept could at once 
> be carried over to the psi-function: |psi|^2 ought to represent the 
> probability density for electrons (or other particles). It was easy to assert 
> this, but how could it be proved?" 
> 
> 
> How could any of the postulates of QM "be proved”?

In arithmetic, when assuming Mechanism. QM has to become a theorem or … 
Mechanism is refuted.

The only thing that we cannot prove is x + 0 = x, etc.

Bruno



> All we can do is make assumptions and determine if they give good 
> predictions. (Have you seen my email?) 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5e659c93-1257-4d02-8481-b0dbef3bc7f9%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/F4BCBA1A-7CCC-46F4-8E40-A36D25E00FF0%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: The problem with physics

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 20 Nov 2019, at 23:52, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 2:42 PM 'Brent Meeker'  
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
> 
> >>> The problem is not how to calculate probabilities, it's what do the 
> >>> probabilities refer to. 
> 
> >> The best betting strategy to follow if you want to win.
> 
> > Right. 
> 
> So you now think it's clear what the probabilities refer to. Me too.
>  
> > They refer to the result of a measurement. 
> 
> A measurement that does not change physical laws so only one set of them is 
> needed.
>  
> > But as you often note in discussing Bruno's Washington/Moscow thought 
> > experiment, in MWI there is no measurement and there is no result...there 
> > are only results.
> 
> There is no way to make a bet within Bruno's idiotic

The insult again. You were just criticising the use of insult, and then you do 
it. 



> thought exparament because there is no way to determine who won and who lost 
> or even nail down exactly what the bet was about,

No less than in the Everett theory.



> but the situation is quite different with the MWI because it's unambiguous 
> what the bet was about and there is no one around to dispute the outcome.

That is not relevant for the prediction on the first person experience, or you 
add magic to computationalism.

You can make the WM thought experience with Robots, or Programs, and the winner 
will be those using the Pascal Triangle correctly. Of course, they are betting 
with people entering in the copy-annihilating box, to get a first person plural 
relative indeterminacy similar (with resect to the bets) to a quantum 
superposition.

Bruno




> 
>  John K Clark
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv21H-u2puTfZxsfYUP1nBG426ACWcikQy%3DVDOuF9Agiww%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/C6743692-A883-4833-A3C8-B770365FC1C2%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: The problem with physics

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 20 Nov 2019, at 14:51, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 12:50 AM Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
> 
> >>> I thought one of the attractions of the many worlds theory was that it 
> >>> was realistic -- in the sense that the wave function really exists a a 
> >>> physical object,
> 
> >> I don't know where in the world you got that idea. Even probability is 
> >> pretty abstract but you don't even get that until you take the square of 
> >> the absolute value of the wave function, which contains imaginary numbers 
> >> by the way. How much more different from a physical object do you want?
> 
> > I thought that you had read Sean Carroll's recent book and might, 
> > therefore, have known better than this. On page 32, Carroll writes "First, 
> > we take the wave function seriously as a direct representation of reality, 
> > not just a book-keeping device to help us organize our knowledge. We treat 
> > it as ontological, not epistemic." That is what is meant by wave function 
> > realism.
> 
> All physicists agree that probabilities and imaginary numbers can help 
> represent physical objects and the same is true of the wave function, but no 
> physicist thinks of imaginary numbers or wave functions or probability as 
> physical objects as you claim. And yes, Carroll treats the wave function as 
> ontological not epistemic, and yes, to Carroll the wave function is more that 
> just a bookkeeping device to keep track of what we know and what we don't 
> know, and yes Carroll gives another correct definition of realism. Many 
> Worlds theory does NOT say a photon just before it hits a polarizing filter 
> is in the up or the down polarization and we just don't know which one, it 
> says it really is in both states, it says a particle is NOT always in one and 
> only one definite state, it says the world is not realistic.
> 
> >> A theory is realistic if it says a particle is in one and only one 
> >> definite state both before and after an interaction even if it has not 
> >> been observed. Many Worlds is about as far from that as you can get.
> 
> > That is not wave function realism as used in many worlds. That version of 
> > realism is not even applicable to ordinary "text-book" quantum mechanics; 
> > it is not even Eisteinian realism.
> 
> I have no idea what the difference is between "text-book" realism and 
> "Eisteinian realism" is and I don't think you do either, in physics there is 
> just realism and nonrealism. And you don't give any definition of "Realism" 
> at all, you just say I'm wrong; but Wikipedia agrees with my definition of 
> the word, it says:
> 
> "Realism is "counterfactual definiteness", the idea that it is possible to 
> meaningfully describe as definite the result of a measurement which, in fact, 
> has not been performed (i.e. the ability to assume the existence of objects, 
> and assign values to their properties, even when they have not been measured).


Yes, that is Einstein’s physical realism. It is implied by Mechanism. It should 
not be confused with physicalism, which assumes that the only explanation of 
physical realism is that there is a primary (irreducible) physical reality. 
With mechanism, the physical realism is entailed by the fact that nobody can 
change the relative measure on all computations in arithmetic, no more than 
changing the value of 666.
The arithmetical reality makes the physical and statistical “counterfactual 
definiteness” as solid as 2+2=4, or Ex(x+2=4), without any need of an 
ontological commitment on some “universe” or “matter”.

Bruno



> 
> > I know that you like to play dumb, John, and act the troll. 
> 
> So this is your strategy now, if you can't win with the facts or with logic 
> maybe you can win a battle of the insults.
> 
>  John K Clark
> 
> -- 
> 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 on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2kmC7Pf-Nt_%3DFXrWaNcJ6Wwfd9k6hpmkQNdjDYnBhaWw%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/C0C9F7B2-290F-4217-B8FA-99CF98D69FE1%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: The problem with physics

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 19 Nov 2019, at 20:18, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/19/2019 6:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 18 Nov 2019, at 22:14, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 11/18/2019 12:20 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
 
 
 On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 1:16:46 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
 On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 7:43 AM Philip Thrift >>> > wrote:
 
 > Adrian Kent's https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.6565 
 >  "real path quantum theory" RPQT
 
 If you fire electrons at 2 slits and observe the slits then each electron 
 takes a real path through one and only one slit and no interference 
 pattern is produced.  If you fire electrons at 2 slits and do NOT observe 
 the slits then a interference pattern is produced indicating that each 
 electron went through both slits. Thus real path quantum theory needs 2 
 sets of physical laws, one for when things are observed and one when they 
 are not. Many Worlds only needs one set of physical laws, and one set is 
 more parsimonious than two.
>>> 
>>> That's what the evangelists for MWI say.  But in fact some more stuff is 
>>> needed to explain why we see the world as we do, i.e. how probability comes 
>>> into it and why is there a preferred basis.  Maybe this more stuff can be 
>>> derived from Schroedinger's equation, but even to do so seems to require 
>>> additional assumptions.
>> 
>> With mechanism: it requires *less* assumptions. Any physics accepting the 
>> mechanist theory of mind must explain the physical appearance from a measure 
>> on all (relative) computations.
> 
> You frequently use this unconditional form of "must" when you actually mean 
> "must, if my theory is right"  which is trivial.


It is not my theory, it is my theorem. I made precise “With Mechanism”.

I am glad you find it trivial, but you are alone on this. It is simple, but not 
really trivial. It is usually contested by people who are not aware that the 
notion of computation is an arithmetical notion, definable using only 0, s, + 
and *, or even with just the K and S axioms, and a bit of equality rule.

Bruno


> 
> Brent
> 
>> The math required for doing this requires more axioms (like the distribution 
>> of prime number studies seems to require analytical axioms). That is normal, 
>> given incompleteness.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
 And if everything that can happen does happen then unlike its competition 
 Many Worlds doesn't have to explain exactly what a "observation" is or 
 worry about the true nature of consciousness because it has nothing to do 
 with it.
 
 John K Clark  
 
 You're hopelessly deluded. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
 To view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/61089f19-6014-4b29-8259-06bdbce4de25%40googlegroups.com
  
 .
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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 on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f021a8a1-6bcc-6a66-9452-4489348b1f45%40verizon.net
>>>  
>>> .
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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 on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/A1C0565E-0661-425D-8C75-B3A493854B0E%40ulb.ac.be
>>  
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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

Re: Branching on real-world decisions

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 7:30:46 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Friday, November 22, 2019 at 1:36:05 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> I have been reading Sean Carroll's book "Something Deeply Hidden". It is 
>> more reasonable than some of the commentary had led me to believe. The 
>> issue at the moment is whether or not all things happen in the quantum 
>> multiverse. I argued that just because I might turn left at some point, 
>> it does not follow from Many-Worlds QM that in some other world I turn 
>> right. 
>>
>> Carroll agrees with this, despite some reports to the contrary. On page 
>> 214 he says "No, you do not cause the wave function to branch by making 
>> a decision Branching is the result of a microscopic process 
>> amplified to macroscopic scales: a system in a quantum superposition 
>> becomes entangled with the environment, leading to decoherence. A 
>> decision, on the other hand, is a purely macroscopic phenomenon. There 
>> are no decisions being made by the electrons and atoms inside your 
>> brain; they're just obeying the laws of physics." 
>>
>> So there is not a coy of me in some other branch that is typing a 
>> completely different email at this moment. 
>>
>> Carroll also says sensible things about quantum suicide and other moral 
>> issues. 
>>
>> I was, as Brent also reported, a little surprised by his argument that 
>> it didn't really matter whether you thought of the splitting of the wave 
>> function/universe on a decohered quantum event as spreading at light 
>> speed, or as instantaneous throughout the entire universe. (pp. 
>> 170-171). I think this reflects the fact that Carroll does not seem to 
>> be as opposed to the idea of non-locality as are other advocates of many 
>> worlds. However, he does seem to think that the fact that outcomes of 
>> experiments are not unique in many-worlds does deflect the impact of 
>> Bell's theorem in that theory. "That doesn't mean that Bell's theorem is 
>> wrong in Many-Worlds; mathematical theorems are unambiguously right. It 
>> just means that the theorem doesn't apply. Bell's result does not imply 
>> that we have to include spooky action at a distance in Everettian 
>> quantum mechanics, as it does  for boring old single-world theories. The 
>> correlations don't come about because of any kind of influence being 
>> transmitted faster than light, but because of branching of the wave 
>> function into different worlds, in which correlated things happen." (p. 
>> 105) 
>>
>> I think this is wrong, of course. The trouble with this argument is that 
>> deflecting Bell's theorem does not automatically mean that your theory 
>> is, in fact, local. And, as is usual for many-worlders, Carroll does not 
>> go on the actually spell out how the magic of world branching actually 
>> gives rise to the observed correlations. (He can't, of course, and that 
>> is why the issue is glossed over.) Maudlin, on the other hand, is so 
>> pissed off with people thinking that they can subvert Bell's theorem, 
>> that he simply states baldly that the quantum mechanical wave function 
>> is intrinsically non-local (Philosophy of Quantum Theory, 2019). 
>>
>> Bruce 
>>
>
> Whether there is a splitting of the observer with the various possible 
> outcomes of a quantum state observed depends upon whether QM is ultimately 
> all there is. This is really an open question. Physics has quantum 
> mechanics that is an L^2 system, with norm determined by the square of 
> amplitudes that determine probabilities. Non-quantum mechanical stochastic 
> systems are L^1 systems. Here I am thinking of macroscopic systems that 
> have pure stochastic  measures. For convex systems or hull with an L^p 
> measure there is a dual L^q system such that 1/p + 1/q = 1. For quantum 
> physics there is a dual system, it is general relativity with its 
> pseudo-Euclidean distance. For my purely stochastic system the dual system 
> is an L^∞ system, which is a deterministic physics such as classical 
> mechanics of Newton, Lagrange and Hamilton. There is a fair amount of 
> mathematics behind this, which I will avoid now, but think of the L^∞ 
> system where there are no distributions fundamental to the theory. 
> Classical physics and any deterministic system, say a Turing machine, is 
> not about some distribution over a system state. The classical stochastic 
> system is just a sum of probabilities, so there is no trouble with seeing 
> that as L^1. The duality between quantum physics and spacetime physics is 
> very suggestive of some deep physics.. 
>
> In this perspective a quantum measurement is then where there is a 
> shifting of the system from p = ½ to p = 1, thinking of a classical-like 
> probability system after decoherence, or with the einselection this flips 
> to  an L^∞ system as a state selection closest to the classical or greatest 
> expectation value. I read last May on how experiments were performed to 
> detect how a system was sta