Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, December 23, 2020 at 1:45:06 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

>
>
> On Sunday, December 20, 2020 at 6:36:53 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, December 20, 2020 at 12:52:26 AM UTC-7 Bruce wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 5:57 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
 On 12/19/2020 10:38 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

>>> On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 6:48 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
 everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

 As far as I know, it was Born who came up with the interpretation of 
> the equations as expressing probabilities.  But there was (and maybe 
> still 
> is) controversy over whether this was irreducibly random or whether there 
> were hidden variables and it was just the randomness of ignorance.  For 
> most physicists this was resolved by the experimental confirmation of the 
> violation of Bell inequalities.  At that point the choice was irreducible 
> randomness or nonlocal effects
>

 That is not quite right. The choice is not between randomnesss and 
 non-locality. Non-local hidden variables (Bohm) do reduce the apparent 
 randomness to ignorance of the detailed quantum state, but at the price of 
 non-locality. Bell's result implies that non-locality is unavoidable, and 
 this has nothing to do with the presence or absence of intrinsic 
 randomness. 


 If there were not intrinsic randomness then the extra correlation of 
 that violates Bell's inequality could be used to signal faster than light.

>>>
>>>
>>> True, but irrelevant to what I said. There is no theory that gives a 
>>> local account of the Bell correlations. Intrinsic randomness guarantees no 
>>> FTL signalling. This seems to rule out local deterministic theories.
>>>
>>
>> *Intrinsic randomness guarantees no FTL signaling. Wow! That's a 
>> breathtaking claim. How is it justified? What is the argument? TIA, AG *
>>
>
> *I'm not disputing your claim. But it's hugely profound, if true. Can you 
> say something, anything about how you've reached this conclusion? TIA, AG *
>

*Maybe your claim is so profound that it's sacrilege to say anything about 
it? Could be. AG *

>
>>> Bruce
>>>
 It is only deterministic theories like MWI and Bohm that eliminate 
 randomness, but MWI does not solve the locality issue either. Besides, MWI 
 is incompatible with the Born Rule; and the Born rule, while consistent 
 with Bohm, cannot be derived from Bohmian mechanics.

 Bruce

 and most physicists saw randomness as the more likely, less disruptive 
> choice.
>
> 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/5b2b3d3b-2f1c-47ac-b398-fe0f74f9a0a3n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

[Bruce Kellett]

On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 5:39 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

>
> You suspected right, I am asking a more basic question about self-sampling
> and the validity of probabilities when a version of the observer sees all
> possible outcomes.
>

There is a problem here -- or maybe it is just careless phrasing. You say
there is a question about probabilities when a version of the observer sees
all possible outcomes. The question is whether it is merely a version of
the observer, a copy of the observer, or the actual observer who sees all
possible outcomes? A "version" is somewhat ambiguous. Different 'versions'
of an operating system, for example, differ in some way. Whereas the
duplicates under consideration here are, by hypothesis, all identical
copies of the original.

As John Clark is fond of pointing out, the trouble with self-sampling from
a set of identical duplicate persons is that the personal pronoun 'you'
loses its unique reference. All copies have an equal claim to be identified
as the original 'you', so there is a real sense in which 'you' see all
outcomes, with probability one. If you attempt to single out a particular
individual by some random sampling procedure, you immediately make a
dualist assumption -- the selected individual is different from the rest
(by virtue of a 'soul', or some such, conferred by the sampling process
itself).

Since there is a sense in which 'you' certainly see all possible outcomes,
there is an immediate conflict with the Born rule, according to which
different outcomes have different probabilities, and 'you' can't see more
than one such outcome.

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/CAFxXSLQ%2B_MBo1by2ttD3-GMFAHysh9zxg3Zfd1c6kOMdGJQRbQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

[Lawrence Crowell]

The equation I derived is a geodesic deviation equation! 

LC

On Wednesday, December 23, 2020 at 1:19:13 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 2:00 PM Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
> > There is a correspondence between the geodesic deviation equation and 
>> the Schrodinger equation.
>>
>
> Wouldn't geodesic deviation be more relevant when dealing with gravity 
> and General Relativity than with Quantum Mechanics?
>
> 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/9c0a7042-9162-4add-96f5-2ed3e7ae5203n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

[John Clark]

On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 2:00 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is a correspondence between the geodesic deviation equation and the
> Schrodinger equation.
>

Wouldn't geodesic deviation be more relevant when dealing with gravity and
General Relativity than with Quantum Mechanics?

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/CAJPayv0ZFyMVkWsKfhg6TA75mMY4RDD07FWyiV5_4i_0sp8Z%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Wednesday, December 23, 2020 at 8:43:05 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 4:52 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
> > *There are many 1p views*
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> > *and for each the probability of that particular observation is one*
>>
>  
> Yes, AFTER Bruce Kellett has observed that the electron went left rather 
> than right then the probability the electron had gone left rather than 
> right is exactly precisely 1. And that proves that making accurate 
> predictions is very very easy if one is permitted to make the predictions 
> AFTER the events in question have happened.
>
> > contradicting the Born rule calculation of the probability in every 
>> case.
>>
>
> No, the Born rule Is about making a prediction BEFORE the event has 
> happened not AFTER.
>  
>
>> > *The Born rule cannot be deduced from the Schrodinger equation*
>>
>
> That is true. The Schrodinger equation just says for every particle there 
> is a wave that is associated with it, the equation says nothing about what 
> is waving, it doesn't even say if that wave has any observable 
> consequences; for that you need a quantum interpretation. The Born Rule is 
> a quantum interpretation. Max Born advanced the idea because from 
> experiments it was shown to have worked and for no other reason. Max Born 
> noticed that if Max Born took the square of the absolute value of the wave 
> function at a point it would provide the probability that Max Born would be 
> able to observe that particle at that point. 
>
> For example, Max Born noticed that if Max Born assumed that the square of 
> the absolute value of the wave function at a point was a probability and if 
> it said the electron was 60% likely to go left and 40% likely to go right 
> under the specified experimental conditions and the experiment was repeated 
> many times with the same conditions then Max Born would observe the 
> electron go left about 60% of the time and right about 40% of the time, and 
> the more times the experiment was repeated the closer it would get to that 
> 60/40 ratio. 
>
> > *they are incompatible.*
>>
>
> If there is one thing that we know for certain about Quantum Mechanics 
> it's that the Born Rule WORKS, so if the Schrodinger Equation was 
> incompatible with the Born Rule then the Schrodinger equation would be a 
> useless piece of garbage. It's not.
>
> John K Clark
>

There is a correspondence between the geodesic deviation equation and the 
Schrodinger equation. A unitary operator U(t) acts on a wave function so 
that U(t)ψ(0) = ψ(t) and U obeys the Schrödinger equation 

iU_t = HU.

This Schrodinger equation may be re-expressed as iU_tU^{-1} = H or iU_tU^† 
= H. We can take an overall time derivative to get

iU_{tt} = H_tU + HU_t 

or

iU_{tt} = i∂_t(U_tU^†) + iU_tU^†U_t.

The term ∂_t(U_tU^†) or ∂_tH is equal to the commutator [H, H] = 0 and so 
we have the elementary equation

U_{tt} = U_tU^\dagger U_t.

This equation is analogous to 

d^2x^α/ds^2} = R^α_{μβν}U^μx^βU^ν.

which is like the unitary evolution equation. The curvature terms may be 
absorbed into the U^μ where the geodesic equation this is a real valued 
analogue of unitary evolution.

LC

-- 
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/8dd51478-8fc7-47f1-b71f-2ed7417792b2n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 21:51, Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 8:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 13:29, Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:45 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
>>> wrote:
>>>

 From what I understand of your position, you would claim that the 1 in
 10^100 copy will screw up the very concept of probability. If that extra
 copy did not exist, you would take dollars, because you will certainly need
 dollars; but with the extra copy you would just throw up your hands and say
 you don't know what to do, because it is certain you will need dollars and
 euros.

>>>
>>>
>>> My complaint about your example is that you are changing the problem --
>>> you are changing the probabilities in a way that is incompatible with both
>>> the Schrodinger equation and the Born rule.
>>>
>>
>> I thought you were talking about probabilities in general where the
>> observer is duplicated because you have a problem with self-sampling. Do
>> you think it makes a difference if there is a 1/2 event, a 1/52 event or a
>> 1/10^100 event? Would the 1/10^100 event cause your metaphysical problem,
>> such that ignoring it requires an assumption of an immaterial soul?
>>
>
> As I suspected, you are simply avoiding the basic question, which is "Is
> MWI (Everett) consistent with the Born rule?". In order to approach this
> problem, we have to look at probabilities and duplication as implied by
> Everettian QM. You have lost track of this by making up extreme examples
> and asking the wrong questions.
>
> We can return to the initial problem if you are interested. But I doubt
> that you are really going to engage with the case that I have made. If
> every outcome occurs on every trial, each outcome individually has
> unit probability -- it certainly occurs. This is incompatible with the Born
> rule. (Do low probability outcomes certainly occur?)
>

You suspected right, I am asking a more basic question about self-sampling
and the validity of probabilities when a version of the observer sees all
possible outcomes.

> --
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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/CAH%3D2ypVDejYXsB5rFcXEX%2BM6hpKQ2AuRRNjNywDAqhfv4pP3qQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

[John Clark]

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 9:29 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

>* t**his is still inconsistent with the Schrodinger equation because* [blah
> blah]


The Schrodinger Equation is not holy writ, but the Born Rule is because it
has been shown over and over again to work. The Schrodinger Equation Is
useful only because it provides the function that the Born Rule says you
should take the square of the absolute value of.

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/CAJPayv3JZjx9KE8PwW81fE-BoYP2b%2BtFCm2U5Ja7M-gNv3Th2Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

[John Clark]

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 5:15 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*> Think of it like this: take a randomly shuffled deck of cards and hand
> one card from the deck to each of 52 people. The probability that one of
> the people will get the 3-of-Spades is one. *


If Many Worlds is correct then the probability that somebody named Bruce
Kellett who has memories and a personality identical with the person that
wrote the email this is a response to will get a 3 of spades is 1, and
the probability that somebody named Bruce Kellett who has memories and a
personality identical with the person that wrote the email this is a
response to will NOT get a 3 of spades is also 1 because in Many Worlds
everything that can happen, that doesn't violate the laws of physics, will
happen.

*> The probability that 'You' will get the 3-of-Spades in a fair shuffle is
> 1/52. *


If Many Worlds is correct then the above statement is OK if looked at from
a everyday strictly close up local perspective, but from a global viewpoint
it would be neither true nor false, it would be gibberish because the
personal pronoun is gibberish.

*> The difference is that you have identified yourself in advance. *


John Clark identifies "you" as anyone who has the memories and personality
of Bruce Kellett; there are an astronomical number of John Clark's, maybe
even an infinite number, but so far none of them have ever observed more
than one chunk of matter that has those characteristics. But there is no
reason in principle why that state of affairs couldn't change.

> *The dualist assumption is equivalent.*


That question would be better dealt with on a list about the martial arts
not this one.

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/CAJPayv0PnnZcKRUsqmo%3Dc6%2BRouEZYxwasF5qFWh-h2ka6fFesA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

[John Clark]

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 4:52 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> *There are many 1p views*
>

Yes.

> *and for each the probability of that particular observation is one*
>

Yes, AFTER Bruce Kellett has observed that the electron went left rather
than right then the probability the electron had gone left rather than
right is exactly precisely 1. And that proves that making accurate
predictions is very very easy if one is permitted to make the predictions
AFTER the events in question have happened.

> contradicting the Born rule calculation of the probability in every case.
>

No, the Born rule Is about making a prediction BEFORE the event has
happened not AFTER.


> > *The Born rule cannot be deduced from the Schrodinger equation*
>

That is true. The Schrodinger equation just says for every particle there
is a wave that is associated with it, the equation says nothing about what
is waving, it doesn't even say if that wave has any observable
consequences; for that you need a quantum interpretation. The Born Rule is
a quantum interpretation. Max Born advanced the idea because from
experiments it was shown to have worked and for no other reason. Max Born
noticed that if Max Born took the square of the absolute value of the wave
function at a point it would provide the probability that Max Born would be
able to observe that particle at that point.

For example, Max Born noticed that if Max Born assumed that the square of
the absolute value of the wave function at a point was a probability and if
it said the electron was 60% likely to go left and 40% likely to go right
under the specified experimental conditions and the experiment was repeated
many times with the same conditions then Max Born would observe the
electron go left about 60% of the time and right about 40% of the time, and
the more times the experiment was repeated the closer it would get to that
60/40 ratio.

> *they are incompatible.*
>

If there is one thing that we know for certain about Quantum Mechanics it's
that the Born Rule WORKS, so if the Schrodinger Equation was incompatible
with the Born Rule then the Schrodinger equation would be a useless piece
of garbage. It's not.

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/CAJPayv0VRBiYs%2B9p0LASSD9zdZQUPngcZfsRgW_rqd4x1M21rw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Dec 2020, at 05:03, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> Science doesn't deal in proofs, only in evidence.  And the reality it deals 
> with is that which can be tested...i.e. is not "underlying”.

I sort of agree. To believe in an underlying reality, or in a fundamental 
reality is not physical science, but theology. But we can do theology with a 
scientific attitude, and find criteria to test the existence and nature of the 
underlying reality that we postulate.

Today, when we do that, the evidences are in favour of Plato, not in favour of 
Aristotle. 
We can say that we have looked carefully to Nature, and that the evidence is 
that Nature is not an ontological, “underlying” reality, but the emergent 
product from the arithmetical relations.

Unfortunately, many people confuse the many evidences for the physical reality 
with an evidence that the physical reality would the underlying reality. That 
move *is* Aristotle postulation or act of faith. It works well for many 
applications, but is not sustained, neither by facts, nor by most of our 
current theories, which, like Darwin Evolution, relies on the Mechanist 
assumption (even implicitly on the Church-Turing these part of Mechanism).

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
> On 12/21/2020 6:49 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> Can you actually define "irreducible randomness" in order to prove it's the 
>> underlying reality of the universe? If so, what is it?   TIA, AG
>> 
>> On Monday, December 21, 2020 at 9:25:57 AM UTC-7 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>> Bell's theorem and the Kochen-Specker theorem are indications of an 
>> irreducible randomness to measurement outcomes in QM.
>> 
>> LC
>> 
>> On Thursday, December 17, 2020 at 12:50:58 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com 
>>  wrote:
>> Can it be directly inferred from Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? TIA, 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/80062de9-c99b-462c-b59a-a0e622775ec1n%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/9654c839-31c3-4344-57c2-c5ecb9a031c7%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/19FB5056-8C9A-4460-8F38-7D793D0AB79B%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 21 Dec 2020, at 17:25, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> Bell's theorem and the Kochen-Specker theorem are indications of an 
> irreducible randomness to measurement outcomes in QM.

That is clear for me when you assume one and only one physical universe, or one 
measurement outcome.

It is less clear if we assume 0 physical universe (like we have to if we want 
biologie and Darwin to keep their explanation power, as they use mechanism and 
this is hard to sustain with any (weak) form of materialism.

Keep in mind that Mechanism introduce already an irreducible randomness in 
self- measurement in the self-duplication/multiplication (in arithmetic, or 
anywhere).

Normally, the quantum weirdness is simply the canonical weirdness met by all 
universal numbers in arithmetic, and due to its intrinsic lack of ability to 
determine which computation run her, among the infinities of computation in any 
“universal-Turing system”.

Bell’s theorem and Kochen-Specker theorem are part of the confirmation that the 
quantum MWI is just the arithmetical multi-computations reality, structured by 
the modes of self-reference of the universal machine (an arithmetical concept).

This per se does not solve the mind-body problem, but is the beginning of its 
formulation. The solution is in the consequence of the (counter-intuitive) 
theory of machine self-references (which applies also to some “gods” (non 
Turing emulable entity) which exist also in the arithmetical reality (called 
“oracle” by Turing).

Some evidences for some type of hidden variable in the physical reality would 
give some evidence that Mechanism is false, but I have not yet seen such 
evidences.

Bruno



> 
> LC
> 
> On Thursday, December 17, 2020 at 12:50:58 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> Can it be directly inferred from Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? TIA, 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/3dca72aa-febd-4b20-afee-e43a7fcee319n%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/104534D7-4A45-42FF-9888-FB37A090129F%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

[Bruce Kellett]

On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 8:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 13:29, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:45 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> From what I understand of your position, you would claim that the 1 in
>>> 10^100 copy will screw up the very concept of probability. If that extra
>>> copy did not exist, you would take dollars, because you will certainly need
>>> dollars; but with the extra copy you would just throw up your hands and say
>>> you don't know what to do, because it is certain you will need dollars and
>>> euros.
>>>
>>
>>
>> My complaint about your example is that you are changing the problem --
>> you are changing the probabilities in a way that is incompatible with both
>> the Schrodinger equation and the Born rule.
>>
>
> I thought you were talking about probabilities in general where the
> observer is duplicated because you have a problem with self-sampling. Do
> you think it makes a difference if there is a 1/2 event, a 1/52 event or a
> 1/10^100 event? Would the 1/10^100 event cause your metaphysical problem,
> such that ignoring it requires an assumption of an immaterial soul?
>

As I suspected, you are simply avoiding the basic question, which is "Is
MWI (Everett) consistent with the Born rule?". In order to approach this
problem, we have to look at probabilities and duplication as implied by
Everettian QM. You have lost track of this by making up extreme examples
and asking the wrong questions.

We can return to the initial problem if you are interested. But I doubt
that you are really going to engage with the case that I have made. If
every outcome occurs on every trial, each outcome individually has
unit probability -- it certainly occurs. This is incompatible with the Born
rule. (Do low probability outcomes certainly occur?)

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/CAFxXSLTDNRHShQtcpHZ%3DiH3mNrQmJ86L537HZ%3D9y3oa7ZYxEGA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 13:29, Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:45 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 10:58, Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:45 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 09:15, Bruce Kellett 
 wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 9:07 AM Stathis Papaioannou <
> stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 09:02, Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 8:32 AM Stathis Papaioannou <
>>> stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 at 21:31, Bruce Kellett 
 wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 9:19 PM Stathis Papaioannou <
> stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> All the copies could be conscious or all could be zombies; none
>> are privileged.
>>
>
> What difference does that make? One has to be privileged in some
> way if there is to be a probability different from zero.
>

 Why did you say it was dualist if it doesn't make a difference that
 it isn't dualist?

>>>
>>> It makes no difference if all copies are conscious, or if all are
>>> zombies -- you are still making a dualist assumption.
>>>
>>> The probability calculated where there are multiple copies is the
 probability that one randomly sampled copy will see a particular 
 outcome. I
 am one randomly sampled copy.

>>>
>>>
>>> And that is precisely the dualist assumption that  is intrinsic in
>>> all self-location (indexical) arguments. I think Brent has understood 
>>> this
>>> when he says "That seems to imply dualism.  All the bodies exist, but 
>>> your
>>> soul only goes with one."
>>>
>>
>> I could say that my soul is duplicated and I want to know the
>> probability that I am one randomly sampled soul. I could say that the
>> carrots are duplicated and I want to know the probability that I get a
>> particular randomly sampled carrot. I don't have a problem with it; you 
>> do,
>> and there seems to be no way around it.
>>
>
>
> Think of it like this: take a randomly shuffled deck of cards and hand
> one card from the deck to each of 52 people. The probability that one of
> the people will get the 3-of-Spades is one. The probability that 'You' 
> will
> get the 3-of-Spades in a fair shuffle is 1/52. The difference is that you
> have identified yourself in advance. The dualist assumption is equivalent.
>

 Let's say you are copied 10^100 times. One copy will end up in a place
 where they use euros and the rest will end up in a place where they use
 dollars. Do you put euros or dollars in your wallet before duplication?

>>>
>>>
>>> Let's say I wait and see! and go to the money exchange if necessary. You
>>> are posing a different problem, one in which the number of copies on a
>>> particular branch is increased. That is incompatible with MWI and Everett
>>> with non-degenerate eigenvalues.
>>>
>>> You don't avoid the dualist implications of self-selection by increasing
>>> the number of copies: the example with 52 cards says everything that is
>>> necessary.
>>>
>>
>> From what I understand of your position, you would claim that the 1 in
>> 10^100 copy will screw up the very concept of probability. If that extra
>> copy did not exist, you would take dollars, because you will certainly need
>> dollars; but with the extra copy you would just throw up your hands and say
>> you don't know what to do, because it is certain you will need dollars and
>> euros.
>>
>
>
> My complaint about your example is that you are changing the problem --
> you are changing the probabilities in a way that is incompatible with both
> the Schrodinger equation and the Born rule.
>

I thought you were talking about probabilities in general where the
observer is duplicated because you have a problem with self-sampling. Do
you think it makes a difference if there is a 1/2 event, a 1/52 event or a
1/10^100 event? Would the 1/10^100 event cause your metaphysical problem,
such that ignoring it requires an assumption of an immaterial soul?

But there could be more moderate examples of branch duplication that would
> be more in line with what is proposed by some people. For example, both
> Sean Carroll and Zurek propose a procedure whereby they expand the number
> of branches so that all branches have equal amplitudes (weights, or Born
> probabilities). This is incompatible with the Schrodinger equation, but if
> we leave that aside for the moment, it gives a branch-counting solution to
> the probability question. The idea then is that you self-select from a
> uniform random distribution over this expanded set of branches.  However,
> the expansion of the number of branches in this 

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

['scerir' via Everything List]

AG asked: does randomness imply no-FTL-signaling?

Let me ask: does determinism imply FTL-signaling?

A is one of the two wings of a Bell apparatus
i is the observable to be measured in A
x is the possible value of i
B is the other wing of a Bell apparatus
j is the observable to be measured in B
y is  the possible value of j
Lambda are hidden variables
p are probabilities

If we write
p_[A,Lambda] (x|i,j) = p_[A,Lambda] (x|i)
p_[B,Lambda] (y|i,j) = p_[B,Lambda] (y|j)
the above is a sort of "locality" condition,
since the value x only depends on the observable i,
and the value y only depends on the observable j.

In a (hypothetical 
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d=ALeKk02Cur06my_H17d_9fUXbVDqBH5ESQ:1608715874782=hypothetical=1=X=2ahUKEwiAy4rS5ePtAhXLO-wKHWX6DTYQkeECKAB6BAgEEDU
 ) deterministic theory (but reproducing QM)
the above "locality" condition is violated.

-- 
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/871899580.451822.1608716365874%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

[Alan Grayson]

If micro reality is irreducibly random, why isn't it appropriate to refer 
to it as the "underlying reality"? You seem to be splitting hairs to no 
avail. AG

On Monday, December 21, 2020 at 9:27:20 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

> Bullshit; Counterexample; the derivation of the LT from the principle of 
> the invariance of the SoL. AG
>
> On Monday, December 21, 2020 at 9:03:14 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote:
>
>> Science doesn't deal in proofs, only in evidence.  And the reality it 
>> deals with is that which can be tested...i.e. is not "underlying".
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> On 12/21/2020 6:49 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> Can you actually define "irreducible randomness" in order to prove it's 
>> the underlying reality of the universe? If so, what is it? TIA, AG 
>>
>> On Monday, December 21, 2020 at 9:25:57 AM UTC-7 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>>> Bell's theorem and the Kochen-Specker theorem are indications of an 
>>> irreducible randomness to measurement outcomes in QM. 
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>> On Thursday, December 17, 2020 at 12:50:58 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Can it be directly inferred from Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? 
 TIA, 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/80062de9-c99b-462c-b59a-a0e622775ec1n%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/177687db-d2f6-4ee1-ac14-23ee5f156eb9n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, December 20, 2020 at 6:36:53 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

> On Sunday, December 20, 2020 at 12:52:26 AM UTC-7 Bruce wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 5:57 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/19/2020 10:38 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 6:48 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
 As far as I know, it was Born who came up with the interpretation of 
 the equations as expressing probabilities.  But there was (and maybe still 
 is) controversy over whether this was irreducibly random or whether there 
 were hidden variables and it was just the randomness of ignorance.  For 
 most physicists this was resolved by the experimental confirmation of the 
 violation of Bell inequalities.  At that point the choice was irreducible 
 randomness or nonlocal effects

>>>
>>> That is not quite right. The choice is not between randomnesss and 
>>> non-locality. Non-local hidden variables (Bohm) do reduce the apparent 
>>> randomness to ignorance of the detailed quantum state, but at the price of 
>>> non-locality. Bell's result implies that non-locality is unavoidable, and 
>>> this has nothing to do with the presence or absence of intrinsic 
>>> randomness. 
>>>
>>>
>>> If there were not intrinsic randomness then the extra correlation of 
>>> that violates Bell's inequality could be used to signal faster than light.
>>>
>>
>>
>> True, but irrelevant to what I said. There is no theory that gives a 
>> local account of the Bell correlations. Intrinsic randomness guarantees no 
>> FTL signalling. This seems to rule out local deterministic theories.
>>
>
> *Intrinsic randomness guarantees no FTL signaling. Wow! That's a 
> breathtaking claim. How is it justified? What is the argument? TIA, AG *
>

*I'm not disputing your claim. But it's hugely profound, if true. Can you 
say something, anything about how you've reached this conclusion? TIA, AG *

>
>> Bruce
>>
>>> It is only deterministic theories like MWI and Bohm that eliminate 
>>> randomness, but MWI does not solve the locality issue either. Besides, MWI 
>>> is incompatible with the Born Rule; and the Born rule, while consistent 
>>> with Bohm, cannot be derived from Bohmian mechanics.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>> and most physicists saw randomness as the more likely, less disruptive 
 choice.

 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/e655a650-dbf0-4232-90ac-b4ff3e72010en%40googlegroups.com.