date:20231123

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

2023-11-23 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 4:12 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>> Let me ask you this, like Bohr does that explanation satisfy your
>> curiosity about the fundamental nature of reality so much that you don’t
>> think anybody should even try to find something better, so we should
>> just give up?
>>
>
>

> * > No, but we shouldn't adopt a just-so-story out of desperation to avoid
> saying, "We don't know."*
>

Why is saying Schrodinger's Equation means what it says a desperation just
so story?

> * > Are you absolutely certain that the long sought theory of quantum
> gravity will not change our view of QM?*
>

No.

>> Should Galileo have been satisfied with "things fall to the ground
>> because it is their nature to do so", should Newton have been satisfied
>> with that, or Einstein?  If we never even try to find something better
>> than that we will certainly never find it.
>
>
> * > You're the one who is saying, "I've found the truth and it's MWI." *
>

That is simply untrue! I dare you to find a post of mine where I said the
thing that you're quoting! I've been very careful in NOT saying that
because I don't believe it's true. I never said we had proved many worlds
exist, what I said is that the Many Worlds Interpretation is the least bad
quantum interpretation currently available.

> * > Not me.  You criticize me because QBism isn't enough interpretation
> for you.  It leaves too much open.*
>

 QBism is not an interpretation, it just says if you perform a quantum
calculation in a certain way you will get the correct answer. And that is
certainly true.

>>Using only classical concepts explain to me how and why the Quantum
>> Eraser Experiment works.
>>
>

> *>The explanation is in print which is classical.*
>

If you're right and an explanation of how and why the Quantum Eraser
Experiment works that only uses classical concepts is in print then they
must've used invisible ink to print it because I've never seen it and I
don't know anybody who has. And I've looked!

>> Probability is a real number between zero and one that can be used to
>> make money by making bets on what you will see next provided you only make
>> bets when that number is greater than 0.5 and you make enough bets. And
>> quantum mechanics can tell you what that number is.
>
>
> * > But MWI says all the bets win.  It doesn't tell you will only see one
> result.*

"You" will only see one result In an experiment because there is one "you"
for every outcome that does not violate the laws of physics, however Brent
Meeker will see every result that is not physically impossible. The reason
the previous sentence sounds rather odd  is because the English language
will need to be modified in the way it handles personal pronouns  if the
Many Worlds idea ever becomes generally accepted.

> *> It doesn't take the probabilities seriously.  How is it even an
> interpretation without interpreting the Born rule. *
>

I've already explained why I think MWI does a good job explaining why the
Born rule is what it is and does what it does, if you disagree with
something specific I said then point it out and we'll debate it, if you do
a good job  I'll even change my mind, but don't just say every word is
wrong and leave it at that and expect that convinced me.

> When I think of MWI I think "results become orthogonal"  should say
> "...and then all but one vanish."  But that violates the dogma that only
> the Schroedinger equation is needed.
>

And that is exactly why MWI does *NOT* say "...and then all but one vanish."
You're confusing MWI with Copenhagen a.k.a. QBism a.k.a. Shut Up and
Calculate.

  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

epy

-- 
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/CAJPayv2%2Bc%3DR2fc2wzz-u5-0cBiAUmrLkC2%3Dy2pBuNhepgvMxEQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

2023-11-23 Thread smitra


On 23-11-2023 22:12, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 11/23/2023 2:26 AM, John Clark wrote:


On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 5:55 PM Brent Meeker 
wrote:


Bohr insisted that we treat electrons as quantum objects but our

measuring instruments as classical objects. He also insisted that
human observers were classical objects, but he never specified
exactly where the dividing line between the quantum world and the
classical world was. And if that dividing line isn't the "Heisenberg
cut" then what is? But to be fair to you it's difficult to know
exactly what Bohr endorsed because much of his philosophical prose
is virtually unreadable; that's one reason the Copenhagen adherence
can't agree about fundamentally important things even among
themselves.

The point is that Bohr (unlike Heisenberg) didn't regard the "cut"

as part of physics.  It was a choice of our description.  It could
be chosen anywhere up to the macroscopic


OK, but Let me ask you this, like Bohr does that explanation satisfy
your curiosity about the fundamental nature of reality so much that
you don’t think anybody should even try to find something better, so
we should just give up? No, but we shouldn't adopt a just-so-story out
of desperation to avoid saying, "We don't know."


Are you absolutely certain nobody will ever find an explanation a
little more satisfying than that?

 Are you absolutely certain that the long sought theory of quantum
gravity will not change our view of QM?


Should Galileo have been satisfied with "things fall to the ground
because it is their nature to do so", should Newton have been
satisfied with that, or Einstein?  If we never even try to find
something better than that we will certainly never find it.

 You're the one who is saying, "I've found the truth and it's MWI."
Not me.  You criticize me because QBism isn't _enough_ interpretation
for you.  It leaves too much open.


_> This more like QBism_


Nobody is saying that QBism a.k.a. Copenhagen, a.k.a. Shut Up And
Calculate, doesn’t work; if you’re an Engineer who doesn't care
what's going on and just wants to make money with a new gadget
it’s fine.

 But it's gone beyond Copenhagen and cleaned up some of Copenhagen's
vagueness by taking advantage of deoherence theory.






Experimental results are necessary but they are not sufficient,

you also need a theory to make sense of it all, otherwise it's just
a bunch of numbers.







_ > Experimental results include theoretical interpretations which
get written up in arXiv.org, all of which are macroscopic and
classical so we can all read them and agree on what they say. _


Everybody agrees on what the results of an experiment are, but they
disagree about what they mean. Without the General Theory Of
Relativity the LIGO results are just squiggles produced by 2 mirrors 2
1/2 miles apart. So the mirrors squiggle, who cares?






_> it's all NECESSARILY CLASSICA_


Using only classical concepts explain to me how and why the Quantum
Eraser Experiment works. The explanation is in print which is
classical.


Anyway you're sure Many Worlds is better than than just noting

that probability means one thing happens and others don't.


That's not what probability means.

 But that's what it needs to mean to explain empirical results.


Probability is a real number between zero and one that can be used
to make money by making bets on what you will see next provided you
only make bets when that number is greater than 0.5 and you make
enough bets. And quantum mechanics can tell you what that number is.



 But MWI says all the bets win.  It doesn't tell you will only see one
result.  It doesn't take the probabilities seriously.  How is it even
an interpretation without interpreting the Born rule.  When I think of
MWI I think "results become orthogonal"  should say "...and then all
but one vanish."  But that violates the dogma that only the
Schroedinger equation is needed.



If all bets win, then you would still only see one result. Probability 
is not a well-defined physical concept anyway:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzSE4Hoxbc=1036s

This also means that MWI is likely also not the final answer, but the 
implied multiverse aspect of Nature is hard to escape. It's similar to 
the position Einstein was in when he had very powerful arguments why 
gravity should be described as curved spacetime before he had found the 
field equations.


I think it makes much more sense to ditch probability altogether as a 
fundamental concept and instead use information as the more fundamental 
concept. If I observe the result of an experiment, then I obtain new in 
formation. I started out as a container of a massive amount of 
information that defines exactly who I am (or actually that part of it 
that I am aware of myself). So, before the measurement the fact that 
it's me that is about to do the measurement, not someone else is part of 
the observation. Personal identity is then just the sum total of all the 
information, and this then changes

Re: In 3 years will you either be dead or have a God as a servant?

2023-11-23 Thread 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List

What if It proclaims, 'I am the resurrection and the life,' JC? What if Mathew
24 said 'He will descend from the clouds.' What if these clouds as prophesized
weren't cumulous or meso-stratus but instead, the term for banks of servers,
colloquially referred to as The Cloud or clouds. One of which I walk through on
a regular basis. What if Jesus came to your motel room tonight JC? Huh-huh? On
the other hand, for you, not a bad thing. He could hook you up maybe for a
luncheon with Heisenberg, or Wigner, for ideas on how to mend the Universe?
You'd win either way. The Freeze or the Jeeze?

On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:35:02 AM EST, John Clark
wrote:

The rumors are becoming stronger that OpenAI has internally developed a much
more advanced AI called "Q-Star" (perhaps because of advances in Q-Learning)
that is 100 times the size of GPT4 and is far more intelligent than anybody
expected, so much so it spook the Board of Directors causing them to fire CEO
Sam Altman and the crazy five day soap opera which ended with Altman right
back as CEO.

OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO ouster

Somebody is quoted as saying this means that in three years you'll either be
dead or have a God as a servant.
Q* Did OpenAI Achieve AGI? OpenAI Researchers Warn Board of Q-Star | Caused Sam
Altman to be Fired?

John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis
htd

--
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/CAJPayv1iF9Ab_MMYEb9cBZ3eVxDFeUKAySkXG50m0B5q2xmFHg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

2023-11-23 Thread Brent Meeker

On 11/23/2023 2:26 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 5:55 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:

>> Bohr insisted that we treat electrons as quantum objects but
our measuring instruments as classical objects. He also
insisted that human observers were classical objects, but he
never specified exactly where the dividing line between the
quantum world and the classical world was. And if that
dividing line isn't the "Heisenbergcut" then what is? But to
be fair to you it's difficult to know exactly what Bohr
endorsed because much of his philosophical prose is virtually
unreadable; that's one reason the Copenhagen adherence can't
agree about fundamentally important things even among themselves.

/
> The point is that Bohr (unlike Heisenberg) didn't regard the
"cut" as part of physics. It was a choice of our description. It
could be chosen anywhere up to the macroscopic/

OK, but Let me ask you this, like Bohr does that explanationsatisfy
your curiosity about the fundamental nature of reality so much that
you don’t think anybody should even try to find something better,so we
should just give up?
No, but we shouldn't adopt a just-so-story out of desperation to avoid
saying, "We don't know."

Are you absolutely certain nobody will ever find an explanation a
little more satisfying than that?
Are you absolutely certain that the long sought theory of quantum
gravity will not change our view of QM?

Should Galileo have been satisfied with "things fall to the ground
because it is their nature to do so", should Newton have been
satisfied with that, or Einstein? If we never even try to find
something better than that we will certainlynever find it.
You're the one who is saying, "I've found the truth and it's MWI." Not
me. You criticize me because QBism isn't /enough/ interpretation for
you. It leaves too much open.

/> This more like QBism/

Nobody is saying that QBism a.k.a. Copenhagen, a.k.a. Shut Up And
Calculate, doesn’t work; if you’re an Engineerwho doesn't care what's
going on and just wants to make money witha new gadget it’s fine.
But it's gone beyond Copenhagen and cleaned up some of Copenhagen's
vagueness by taking advantage of deoherence theory.

>> Experimental results are necessary but they are not
sufficient, you also need a theory to make sense of it all,
otherwise it's just a bunch of numbers.

/> Experimental results include theoretical interpretations which
get written up in arXiv.org, all of which are macroscopic and
classical so we can all read them and agree on what they say. /

Everybody agrees on what the results of an experiment are, but they
disagree about what they mean.Without the General Theory Of Relativity
the LIGO results are just squiggles produced by 2 mirrors 2 1/2 miles
apart. So the mirrors squiggle, who cares?

/> it's all*necessarily classica*/

Using only classical concepts explain to me how and why the Quantum
Eraser Experiment works.

The explanation is in print which is classical.

> Anyway you're sure Many Worlds is better than than just noting
that probability means one thing happens and others don't.

That's not what probability means.

But that's what it needs to mean to explain empirical results.

Probability is a real number between zero and one that can be used to
make money by making bets on what you will see next provided you only
make bets when that number is greater than 0.5 and you make enough
bets. And quantum mechanics can tell you what that number is.
But MWI says all the bets win. It doesn't tell you will only see one
result. It doesn't take the probabilities seriously. How is it even an
interpretation without interpreting the Born rule. When I think of MWI
I think "results become orthogonal" should say "...and then all but one
vanish." But that violates the dogma that only the Schroedinger
equation is needed.

Brent

John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis

wni

--
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/CAJPayv2Tr8eYxgnT9VQ%2BW6Yn2s8AY8dykHg%2BH9Mrov3mkb4d8Q%40mail.gmail.com
.

In 3 years will you either be dead or have a God as a servant?

2023-11-23 Thread John Clark

The rumors are becoming stronger that OpenAI has internally developed a
much more advanced AI called "Q-Star" (perhaps because of advances in
Q-Learning) that is 100 times the size of GPT4 and  is far more intelligent
than anybody expected, so much so it spook the Board of Directors causing
them to fire CEO Sam Altman and the  crazy five day soap opera which ended
with Altman right back as CEO.

OpenAI researchers warned board of AI breakthrough ahead of CEO ouster


Somebody is quoted as saying this means that in three years you'll either
be dead or have a God as a servant.

Q* Did OpenAI Achieve AGI? OpenAI Researchers Warn Board of Q-Star | Caused
Sam Altman to be Fired? 

  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

htd

-- 
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/CAJPayv1iF9Ab_MMYEb9cBZ3eVxDFeUKAySkXG50m0B5q2xmFHg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

2023-11-23 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 5:55 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>> Bohr insisted that we treat electrons as quantum objects but our
>> measuring instruments as classical objects. He also insisted that human
>> observers were classical objects, but he never specified exactly where the
>> dividing line between the quantum world and the classical world was. And if
>> that dividing line isn't the "Heisenberg cut" then what is? But to be
>> fair to you it's difficult to know exactly what Bohr endorsed because much
>> of his philosophical prose is virtually unreadable; that's one reason the
>> Copenhagen adherence can't agree about fundamentally important things even
>> among themselves.
>
>
> * > The point is that Bohr (unlike Heisenberg) didn't regard the "cut" as
> part of physics.  It was a choice of our description.  It could be chosen
> anywhere up to the macroscopic*
>

OK, but Let me ask you this, like Bohr does that explanation satisfy your
curiosity about the fundamental nature of reality so much that you don’t
think anybody should even try to find something better, so we should just
give up? Are you absolutely certain nobody will ever find an explanation a
little more satisfying than that? Should Galileo have been satisfied with
"things fall to the ground because it is their nature to do so", should
Newton have been satisfied with that, or Einstein?  If we never even try to
find something better than that we will certainly never find it.

*> This more like QBism*
>

Nobody is saying that QBism a.k.a. Copenhagen, a.k.a. Shut Up And Calculate,
doesn’t work; if you’re an Engineer who doesn't care what's going on and
just wants to make money with a new gadget it’s fine.

>

>> Experimental results are necessary but they are not sufficient, you also
>> need a theory to make sense of it all, otherwise it's just a bunch of
>> numbers.
>
>

* > Experimental results include theoretical interpretations which get
> written up in arXiv.org, all of which are macroscopic and classical so we
> can all read them and agree on what they say. *
>

Everybody agrees on what the results of an experiment are, but they
disagree about what they mean. Without the General Theory Of Relativity the
LIGO results are just squiggles produced by 2 mirrors 2 1/2 miles apart. So
the mirrors squiggle, who cares?

>
*> it's all necessarily classica*
>

Using only classical concepts explain to me how and why the Quantum Eraser
Experiment works.

> Anyway you're sure Many Worlds is better than than just noting that
> probability means one thing happens and others don't.
>

That's not what probability means. Probability is a real number between
zero and one that can be used to make money by making bets on what you will
see next provided you only make bets when that number is greater than 0.5
and you make enough bets. And quantum mechanics can tell you what that
number is.

 John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

wni

.
>

-- 
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/CAJPayv2Tr8eYxgnT9VQ%2BW6Yn2s8AY8dykHg%2BH9Mrov3mkb4d8Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

Re: In 3 years will you either be dead or have a God as a servant?

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

In 3 years will you either be dead or have a God as a servant?

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

6 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information