Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Brent Meeker]

On 11/24/2023 2:35 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 1:48 AM John Clark  wrote:

On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 5:36 AM Brent Meeker
 wrote:

//
/> Let's review the bidding John.  I said the classical world
was necessary to science/


And if that's all you had said we wouldn't be having an argument,
but you insisted that classical concepts were also sufficient to
do science. You even claimed that an "explanation is in print"
that explains why the Quantum Eraser Experiment does what it does
and doesn't do what it doesn't do that, as my challenge specified,
uses only classical concepts. But you don't say where I can find
this revolutionary article that would certainly change physics
forever if it actually existed.

/> You attempted to counter this by challenging me to explain
the quantum eraser experiment  without quantum mechanics/


You seem to have difficulty remembering things I have said and yet
you find it very easy to remember things that I did *NOT* say,
therefore I will provide an exact quote of the challenge I gave to
you:

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

And I am still waiting for that explanationfrom you. In fact for
about a century the entire world has been trying to find an
explanation for quantum weirdness using only intuitive classical
physics, and they have failed spectacularly.

> ...a complete non-sequitur.


What is a complete non-sequitur?

/> I replied that our quantum mechanical explanations are
written out in classically behaving ink. I never said
explanations must be in classical terms,/


Again I will use exact quotes as I wish you had.My challenge to
you was:

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

And the best response to my challenge that you could come up with was:
"/The explanation is in print which is classica/l"



Can you tell the difference between the above and "The explanation is 
classical and is in print."  You were just trying to move the goal 
post.  I never said there were not explanations using quantum concepts 
like Hilbert space and the Born rule.  This started with me pointing 
out, like Bohr, that all science: experiments, records, results, 
theories are necessarily in a classical world.  To say that those 
theories may postulate quantum world does not invalidate it.


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/a6483a7d-c52d-4768-b164-a2fe1a74c30d%40gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 1:48 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 5:36 AM Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
> * > Let's review the bidding John.  I said the classical world was
>> necessary to science*
>>
>
> And if that's all you had said we wouldn't be having an argument, but you
> insisted that classical concepts were also sufficient to do science. You
> even claimed that an "explanation is in print" that explains why the
> Quantum Eraser Experiment does what it does and doesn't do what it doesn't
> do that, as my challenge specified, uses only classical concepts. But you
> don't say where I can find this revolutionary article that would certainly
> change physics forever if it actually existed.
>
> *> You attempted to counter this by challenging me to explain the quantum
>> eraser experiment  without quantum mechanics*
>>
>
> You seem to have difficulty remembering things I have said and yet you
> find it very easy to remember things that I did *NOT* say, therefore I
> will provide an exact quote of the challenge I gave to you:
>
>  "Using only *classical concepts* explain to me how and why the Quantum
> Eraser Experiment works."
>
> And I am still waiting for that explanation from you. In fact for about a
> century the entire world has been trying to find an explanation for quantum
> weirdness using only intuitive classical physics, and they have failed
> spectacularly.
>
>
>
>> > ...a complete non-sequitur.
>>
>
> What is a  complete non-sequitur?
>
>
>
>> * > I replied that our quantum mechanical explanations are written out in
>> classically behaving ink.  I never said explanations must be in classical
>> terms,*
>>
>
> Again I will use exact quotes as I wish you had.  My challenge to you was:
>
> "Using only classical concepts explain to me how and why the Quantum
> Eraser Experiment works."
>
> And the best response to my challenge that you could come up with was:
>
> "*The explanation is in print which is classica*l"
>
> Then in your most recent post you **claimed** you had said:
>
> "*the explanation IF in print and print is classical.*"
>
> You added an "*if*" that your original quote did not have, and that "*if*"
> is of gargantuan size!* If *in the mathematical literature a correct
> proof that only a finite number of prime numbers exists, or that 2+2 = 5,
> *then* that proof is printed using ink that can be thought of as behaving
> classically because the quantum mechanical nature of the ink does not
> interfere with the information it conveys. The preceding sentence is
> perfectly true, it is also perfectly silly.
>
> *>  I said they must be classically embodied.*
>
>
> I specifically asked for "classical *concepts*" that explain experimental
> results, but even if I had not specifically included the word "*concepts*
> " I would have found it very difficult to believe you really thought I
> was interested in ink and not in ideas. I think you were pretending to
> misunderstand what I was asking you to do because you couldn't find any
> other way to meet my challenge. But I could be wrong, if so do you also
> believe that professors of English literature are only interested in the
> sequence of ASCII characters that Shakespeare outputted when writing his
> plays and not the ideas the words made up of those ASCII characters represent?
>
>


Perhaps this account of quantum eraser experiments by Sean Carroll is an
appropriate classical description of a quantum process?

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2019/09/21/the-notorious-delayed-choice-quantum-eraser/

Or you can look at the account of the classical quantum eraser/delayed
choice experiment here:

arXiv:1206.6578.pdf

The descriptions of these experiments are given in purely classical terms.

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/CAFxXSLRJS%2BFiw%3DLHkfp6fgsbR3_0gbF27Gnst4aWqe0NSsVg2Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 5:36 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:

* > Let's review the bidding John.  I said the classical world was
> necessary to science*
>

And if that's all you had said we wouldn't be having an argument, but you
insisted that classical concepts were also sufficient to do science. You
even claimed that an "explanation is in print" that explains why the
Quantum Eraser Experiment does what it does and doesn't do what it doesn't
do that, as my challenge specified, uses only classical concepts. But you
don't say where I can find this revolutionary article that would certainly
change physics forever if it actually existed.

*> You attempted to counter this by challenging me to explain the quantum
> eraser experiment  without quantum mechanics*
>

You seem to have difficulty remembering things I have said and yet you find
it very easy to remember things that I did *NOT* say, therefore I will
provide an exact quote of the challenge I gave to you:

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

And I am still waiting for that explanation from you. In fact for about a
century the entire world has been trying to find an explanation for quantum
weirdness using only intuitive classical physics, and they have failed
spectacularly.



> > ...a complete non-sequitur.
>

What is a  complete non-sequitur?



> * > I replied that our quantum mechanical explanations are written out in
> classically behaving ink.  I never said explanations must be in classical
> terms,*
>

Again I will use exact quotes as I wish you had.  My challenge to you was:

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

And the best response to my challenge that you could come up with was:

"*The explanation is in print which is classica*l"

Then in your most recent post you **claimed** you had said:

"*the explanation IF in print and print is classical.*"

You added an "*if*" that your original quote did not have, and that "*if*"
is of gargantuan size!* If *in the mathematical literature a correct proof
that only a finite number of prime numbers exists, or that 2+2 = 5, *then*
that proof is printed using ink that can be thought of as behaving
classically because the quantum mechanical nature of the ink does not
interfere with the information it conveys. The preceding sentence is
perfectly true, it is also perfectly silly.

*>  I said they must be classically embodied.*


I specifically asked for "classical *concepts*" that explain experimental
results, but even if I had not specifically included the word "*concepts* " I
would have found it very difficult to believe you really thought I was
interested in ink and not in ideas. I think you were pretending to
misunderstand what I was asking you to do because you couldn't find any
other way to meet my challenge. But I could be wrong, if so do you also
believe that professors of English literature are only interested in the
sequence of ASCII characters that Shakespeare outputted when writing his
plays and not the ideas the words made up of those ASCII characters
represent?


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

spw


>

-- 
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/CAJPayv1fCKQELwha44Cmx-%2B5Hvu5F4_TwfNdkxUT%2B6fsX0qEOw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Brent Meeker]

On 11/24/2023 2:26 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:


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


[Brent] The explanation is in print which is classical.
[John] If you're right and an explanation of how and why the Quantum 
Eraser Experiment worksthat 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!


Let's review the bidding John.  I said the classical world was necessary 
to science because we need to write down results and theories that we 
can share.  We can't deal in superpositions of different results.  You 
attempted to counter this by challenging me to explain the quantum 
eraser experiment  without quantum mechanics...a complete non-sequitur.  
I replied that our quantum mechanical explanations are written out in 
classically behaving ink.  I never said explanations must be in 
classical terms,  I said they must be classically embodied.


Brent



https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.03137Ruth Kastner wrote an interesting 
paper about Quantum Erasure and Delayed Choice /

/

--
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/2063434390.902526.1700821592628%40mail1.libero.it 
.


--
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/10eaddaa-5374-4ca8-afda-621e0fe34715%40gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

['scerir' via Everything List]

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

[Brent] The explanation is in print which is classical.
 
[John] 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! 
 
https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.03137 Ruth Kastner wrote an interesting paper about 
Quantum Erasure and Delayed Choice

 

-- 
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/2063434390.902526.1700821592628%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Brent Meeker]

On 11/23/2023 11:16 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 4:12 PM Brent Meeker  
wrote:


>> 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."
/


Why is saying Schrodinger's Equation means what it says a desperation 
just so story?
It says there is never a measurement, all possible events occur, you 
just can't see them.


/> 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 certainlynever
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 isnot 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.
Suppose it says one of the worlds is realized with Born's probability 
and the others vanish.  It that then an interpretation?



>>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 worksthat 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!
I didn't say that, I said the explanation if in print and print is 
classical.


>> 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 resultIn an experiment because there is one 
"you" for every outcome that does not violate the laws of physics, 
however Brent Meekerwill 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 pronounsif 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 thinkMWI does a good job explaining why 
the Born ruleis 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.


Well remind then, do you think that the number of branches determined to 
implement a frequentist realization of the Born rule? Or do you adhere 
to the idea there is only one branch per possible outcome and they have 
weights attached to them per Born?




> 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 whyMWI 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.
MWI still needs the Born rule to be instantiated...which does not follow 
from the Schroedinger equation.


Brent



John K Clark    See 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??

[Brent Meeker]

On 11/23/2023 10:38 PM, smitra wrote:

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&t=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