Re: Max and FPI
This hasn't clarified matters, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe you could go back to my original comment, that wave function collapse isn't an observed fact, and tell me if you agree with that, then once we've settled that we can move on to the next point (whatever that is), and so on? On 11 April 2014 16:47, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 3, 2014 7:56:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 3 April 2014 16:56, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 3, 2014 3:07:26 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 3 April 2014 14:39, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that wavefunction collapse isn't an observed fact, which seems to me a fairly reasonable statement, because we can't observe entities like wavefunctions directly, and we certainly can't observe their collapse directly. Some people would say we can't observe *anything* directly, but under the normally understood meaning of observe it seems reasonable to say that we observe the images on our retinas, and hence that we can observe the dots on a screen, and we can also be reasonably said to be able to observe the pattern they make. I'm not saying anything about the MWI or Copenhagen or whatever here, merely that (in normal usage of observe) we can observe dots on a screen, and we can't observe abstract theoretical entities like wavefunctions, or their collapse. I apologize for the extensive subset of my much more extensive range of shortcomings causing up to all of that confusion. May I try again...this time boiling it all down to a single request? Based on what was at the time the widely accepted proxy for the more problematic meaning of 'observation', what was observed that gave rise in the first place to the widely perceived, arguably urgent, need for an Interpretation of what it meant? The observation described above, and shown in the pictures. The need for interpretation comes from the fact that the objects (electrons or photons, for example) involved are assumed to be far too small to be influenced by both slits in the experiment (the fact that they form localised dots on the screen also indicates that they are very small). Yet all these small objects manage to build up a global interference pattern involving the presence of both slits (a pattern that vanishes if one slit is covered). This doesn't at first seem paradoxical, because a similar phenomenon occurs when a wave in water passes through two gaps of the right size, for example. In this case there is a medium present at each point through which the waves are travelling, so the influence has something to transmit it, and the resulting effect is easily explanied. So one's first guess is likely to be that the photons or electron in the 2-slit experiment are just be interfering with each other in a similar manner ... which wouldn't be paradoxical , of course ... except for the additional fact that the intensity of the source can be turned down until only one particle is passing through the apparatus at any given time - yet even in this case, the interference pattern still appears (eventually). This situation appears in need of urgent explanation because the apparent smallness of the particles in relation to the size of the equipment suggests that a single electron or photon can't possibly know about (be influenced by) a slit which it doesn't pass through, and which is, relatively speaking, a large distance away. Assuming a photon passes through the left hand slit, say, there is no known physical mechanism available to tell it about the existence of the right hand slit. Yet it will hit the screen in a position that is (statistically) determined by what looks like interference between waves passing through both slits. Hence the paradox. I'd agree that's a component but why is that on its own a more urgent problem than the action at a distance problems with Newton's force when gravity? Or all those contradictions that accumulated in the late 19th century, that people felt were pretty incomprehensible and shocking, yet no one at any time started talking about the need for an 'interpretation' that made it all feel explained at any price? How come everyone was willing to leave all those problems wide open for up to hundreds of years, until not just an interpretation and explanation but scientific next generation theory, complete with all the traits science the way they knew and loved were explicit and visible. They had worse problems than this electron? On there own terms, as the knowledge they had, that was important to them, that was being upended by the contradictions that they faced. Was it worse for them, or where they just willing to live with it, because they knew they just had not accumulated enough knowledge yet to begin to answer the questions? I'm not sure who you're arguing with here, if anyone. All I
Re: Max and FPI
On Friday, April 11, 2014 7:14:39 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: This hasn't clarified matters, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe you could go back to my original comment, that wave function collapse isn't an observed fact, and tell me if you agree with that, then once we've settled that we can move on to the next point (whatever that is), and so on? Liz - unless you have a component of hard science that is not the equation itself, and not the fact the equation is itself fairly describnmope as a wavefunction, andn nor either the wave/particle effects nor the interference effects. And this hard component you call the WaveFunction proper. Unless you've actually got that, then you don't have anything at all, in which case there would be a case to answer, Or just explaining this mercurial abstraction. In which QM equation may I derive this thing? I don't you have anything, and if you don't then it definitely has no legitimacy Qat you overrule the hard connections between QM equations and observed reality, on the grounds there might be something like that despite absolutely no evidence for it. Or need. Please. Hit me with this huge chunk of science I've been overlooking. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On Friday, April 11, 2014 7:31:20 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, April 11, 2014 7:14:39 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: This hasn't clarified matters, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe you could go back to my original comment, that wave function collapse isn't an observed fact, and tell me if you agree with that, then once we've settled that we can move on to the next point (whatever that is), and so on? Liz - unless you have a component of hard science that is not the equation itself, and not the fact the equation is itself fairly describnmope as a wavefunction, andn nor either the wave/particle effects nor the interference effects. And this hard component you call the WaveFunction proper. Unless you've actually got that, then you don't have anything at all, in which case there would be a case to answer, Or just explaining this mercurial abstraction. In which QM equation may I derive this thing? e I don't you have anything, and if you don't then it definitely has no legitimacy Qat you overrule the hard connections between QM equations and observed reality, on the grounds there might be something like that despite absolutely no evidence for it. Or need. Please. Hit me with this huge chunk of science I've been overlooking P.S. thngs like 'collapse', 'wavefunction' are just words. There is no particular need for what happens to characterize something collapsed. There is no particular necessity that a wave function as you speak of it should not exist, or that it whould collapse or not. They are just words. What matters are the relations and dependencies. You, and you all,m interact about this matter as if it is my side that wants or needs there to be a wavefunction that is tied to the interference,m or wants or needs that this should collapse. I see no importance to all that in this context. What is important is that the mathematical function is discontinous. That's the hard evidence. I don't see any conflict between that and a wave function that never collapses. A discontinuity at one level does not prevent continuinity a wavefunction nevrer collapses can also ahave a discrete nature? Digital nature? It's not me or my side that that demanding there is a link toiand collapse that we observe is not a collapse at all but universex splittinhg. I mean Liz, all of that would very strongly suggest that you do asoicater the observed evetns with this wave function. You build a freaking multiverse just to say it wasn't a collapse,. So ther strong implication ithat you must think that collapse like event, is your wavefunction? Because if you don't, why all the frenzied effort to explain it isn't? It's me or myside. What I want to say isx simply what happens,The equation loses its descriptve v alue the interference pattern goes away,and a large amount of that remains a mystery ato be solved. But the problem for you, is that on the one side you say non of those oberved effects are the wavefunction, and it isn't observed to vanish. On the o0ther hand, you sxy the 'apparent'collapse is decoherance and universes splitting and the wavefunction is alive and wellthe effect we see is local to u8s. So you say it is is, and i sin't the wavefucntion, effectively -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On Friday, April 11, 2014 8:34:10 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, April 11, 2014 7:31:20 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, April 11, 2014 7:14:39 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: This hasn't clarified matters, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe you could go back to my original comment, that wave function collapse isn't an observed fact, and tell me if you agree with that, then once we've settled that we can move on to the next point (whatever that is), and so on? Liz - unless you have a component of hard science that is not the equation itself, and not the fact the equation is itself fairly describnmope as a wavefunction, andn nor either the wave/particle effects nor the interference effects. And this hard component you call the WaveFunction proper. Unless you've actually got that, then you don't have anything at all, in which case there would be a case to answer, Or just explaining this mercurial abstraction. In which QM equation may I derive this thing? e I don't you have anything, and if you don't then it definitely has no legitimacy Qat you overrule the hard connections between QM equations and observed reality, on the grounds there might be something like that despite absolutely no evidence for it. Or need. Please. Hit me with this huge chunk of science I've been overlooking P.S. thngs like 'collapse', 'wavefunction' are just words. There is no particular need for what happens to characterize something collapsed. There is no particular necessity that a wave function as you speak of it should not exist, or that it whould collapse or not. They are just words. What matters are the relations and dependencies. You, and you all,m interact about this matter as if it is my side that wants or needs there to be a wavefunction that is tied to the interference,m or wants or needs that this should collapse. I see no importance to all that in this context. What is important is that the mathematical function is discontinous. That's the hard evidence. I don't see any conflict between that and a wave function that never collapses. A discontinuity at one level does not prevent continuinity a wavefunction nevrer collapses can also ahave a discrete nature? Digital nature? It's not me or my side that that demanding there is a link toiand collapse that we observe is not a collapse at all but universex splittinhg. I mean Liz, all of that would very strongly suggest that you do asoicater the observed evetns with this wave function. You build a freaking multiverse just to say it wasn't a collapse,. So ther strong implication ithat you must think that collapse like event, is your wavefunction? Because if you don't, why all the frenzied effort to explain it isn't? It's me or myside. What I want to say isx simply what happens,The equation loses its descriptve v alue the interference pattern goes away,and a large amount of that remains a mystery ato be solved. But the problem for you, is that on the one side you say non of those oberved effects are the wavefunction, and it isn't observed to vanish. On the o0ther hand, you sxy the 'apparent'collapse is decoherance and universes splittinsg and the wavefunction is alive and wellthe effect we see is local to u8s. So you say it is is, and i sin't the wavefucntion, effectively ORif you are being consistent, then the reason you are is because that claim you mad4wbout the wave is not observed is hard tied to the multiverse already,. In which case, that is what I already suggested, Which would leave you open to hampant begging the question, Because you are in a process involving questions askerd at the root of that theory. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 7:56:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 3 April 2014 16:56, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Thursday, April 3, 2014 3:07:26 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 3 April 2014 14:39, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that wavefunction collapse isn't an observed fact, which seems to me a fairly reasonable statement, because we can't observe entities like wavefunctions directly, and we certainly can't observe their collapse directly. Some people would say we can't observe *anything* directly, but under the normally understood meaning of observe it seems reasonable to say that we observe the images on our retinas, and hence that we can observe the dots on a screen, and we can also be reasonably said to be able to observe the pattern they make. I'm not saying anything about the MWI or Copenhagen or whatever here, merely that (in normal usage of observe) we can observe dots on a screen, and we can't observe abstract theoretical entities like wavefunctions, or their collapse. I apologize for the extensive subset of my much more extensive range of shortcomings causing up to all of that confusion. May I try again...this time boiling it all down to a single request? Based on what was at the time the widely accepted proxy for the more problematic meaning of 'observation', what was observed that gave rise in the first place to the widely perceived, arguably urgent, need for an Interpretation of what it meant? The observation described above, and shown in the pictures. The need for interpretation comes from the fact that the objects (electrons or photons, for example) involved are assumed to be far too small to be influenced by both slits in the experiment (the fact that they form localised dots on the screen also indicates that they are very small). Yet all these small objects manage to build up a global interference pattern involving the presence of both slits (a pattern that vanishes if one slit is covered). This doesn't at first seem paradoxical, because a similar phenomenon occurs when a wave in water passes through two gaps of the right size, for example. In this case there is a medium present at each point through which the waves are travelling, so the influence has something to transmit it, and the resulting effect is easily explanied. So one's first guess is likely to be that the photons or electron in the 2-slit experiment are just be interfering with each other in a similar manner ... which wouldn't be paradoxical , of course ... except for the additional fact that the intensity of the source can be turned down until only one particle is passing through the apparatus at any given time - yet even in this case, the interference pattern still appears (eventually). This situation appears in need of urgent explanation because the apparent smallness of the particles in relation to the size of the equipment suggests that a single electron or photon can't possibly know about (be influenced by) a slit which it doesn't pass through, and which is, relatively speaking, a large distance away. Assuming a photon passes through the left hand slit, say, there is no known physical mechanism available to tell it about the existence of the right hand slit. Yet it will hit the screen in a position that is (statistically) determined by what looks like interference between waves passing through both slits. Hence the paradox. I'd agree that's a component but why is that on its own a more urgent problem than the action at a distance problems with Newton's force when gravity? Or all those contradictions that accumulated in the late 19th century, that people felt were pretty incomprehensible and shocking, yet no one at any time started talking about the need for an 'interpretation' that made it all feel explained at any price? How come everyone was willing to leave all those problems wide open for up to hundreds of years, until not just an interpretation and explanation but scientific next generation theory, complete with all the traits science the way they knew and loved were explicit and visible. They had worse problems than this electron? On there own terms, as the knowledge they had, that was important to them, that was being upended by the contradictions that they faced. Was it worse for them, or where they just willing to live with it, because they knew they just had not accumulated enough knowledge yet to begin to answer the questions? I'm not sure who you're arguing with here, if anyone. All I said was that the collapse of the wave function hasn't been directly observed. I guess you've agreed with that comment, if you want to move on to something else. So, after that you moved on to what was the problem with the two slit experiment. OK, so I've
Re: Max and FPI
On Friday, April 11, 2014 5:47:43 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 3, 2014 7:56:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 3 April 2014 16:56, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 3, 2014 3:07:26 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 3 April 2014 14:39, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that wavefunction collapse isn't an observed fact, which seems to me a fairly reasonable statement, because we can't observe entities like wavefunctions directly, and we certainly can't observe their collapse directly. Some people would say we can't observe *anything* directly, but under the normally understood meaning of observe it seems reasonable to say that we observe the images on our retinas, and hence that we can observe the dots on a screen, and we can also be reasonably said to be able to observe the pattern they make. I'm not saying anything about the MWI or Copenhagen or whatever here, merely that (in normal usage of observe) we can observe dots on a screen, and we can't observe abstract theoretical entities like wavefunctions, or their collapse. I apologize for the extensive subset of my much more extensive range of shortcomings causing up to all of that confusion. May I try again...this time boiling it all down to a single request? Based on what was at the time the widely accepted proxy for the more problematic meaning of 'observation', what was observed that gave rise in the first place to the widely perceived, arguably urgent, need for an Interpretation of what it meant? The observation described above, and shown in the pictures. The need for interpretation comes from the fact that the objects (electrons or photons, for example) involved are assumed to be far too small to be influenced by both slits in the experiment (the fact that they form localised dots on the screen also indicates that they are very small). Yet all these small objects manage to build up a global interference pattern involving the presence of both slits (a pattern that vanishes if one slit is covered). This doesn't at first seem paradoxical, because a similar phenomenon occurs when a wave in water passes through two gaps of the right size, for example. In this case there is a medium present at each point through which the waves are travelling, so the influence has something to transmit it, and the resulting effect is easily explanied. So one's first guess is likely to be that the photons or electron in the 2-slit experiment are just be interfering with each other in a similar manner ... which wouldn't be paradoxical , of course ... except for the additional fact that the intensity of the source can be turned down until only one particle is passing through the apparatus at any given time - yet even in this case, the interference pattern still appears (eventually). This situation appears in need of urgent explanation because the apparent smallness of the particles in relation to the size of the equipment suggests that a single electron or photon can't possibly know about (be influenced by) a slit which it doesn't pass through, and which is, relatively speaking, a large distance away. Assuming a photon passes through the left hand slit, say, there is no known physical mechanism available to tell it about the existence of the right hand slit. Yet it will hit the screen in a position that is (statistically) determined by what looks like interference between waves passing through both slits. Hence the paradox. I'd agree that's a component but why is that on its own a more urgent problem than the action at a distance problems with Newton's force when gravity? Or all those contradictions that accumulated in the late 19th century, that people felt were pretty incomprehensible and shocking, yet no one at any time started talking about the need for an 'interpretation' that made it all feel explained at any price? How come everyone was willing to leave all those problems wide open for up to hundreds of years, until not just an interpretation and explanation but scientific next generation theory, complete with all the traits science the way they knew and loved were explicit and visible. They had worse problems than this electron? On there own terms, as the knowledge they had, that was important to them, that was being upended by the contradictions that they faced. Was it worse for them, or where they just willing to live with it, because they knew they just had not accumulated enough knowledge yet to begin to answer the questions? I'm not sure who you're arguing with here, if anyone. All I said was that the collapse of the wave function hasn't been directly observed. I guess you've agreed with that comment, if you want to move on to something else. So, after that you
Re: Max and FPI
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 7:56:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 3 April 2014 16:56, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Thursday, April 3, 2014 3:07:26 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 3 April 2014 14:39, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that wavefunction collapse isn't an observed fact, which seems to me a fairly reasonable statement, because we can't observe entities like wavefunctions directly, and we certainly can't observe their collapse directly. Some people would say we can't observe *anything* directly, but under the normally understood meaning of observe it seems reasonable to say that we observe the images on our retinas, and hence that we can observe the dots on a screen, and we can also be reasonably said to be able to observe the pattern they make. I'm not saying anything about the MWI or Copenhagen or whatever here, merely that (in normal usage of observe) we can observe dots on a screen, and we can't observe abstract theoretical entities like wavefunctions, or their collapse. I apologize for the extensive subset of my much more extensive range of shortcomings causing up to all of that confusion. May I try again...this time boiling it all down to a single request? Based on what was at the time the widely accepted proxy for the more problematic meaning of 'observation', what was observed that gave rise in the first place to the widely perceived, arguably urgent, need for an Interpretation of what it meant? The observation described above, and shown in the pictures. The need for interpretation comes from the fact that the objects (electrons or photons, for example) involved are assumed to be far too small to be influenced by both slits in the experiment (the fact that they form localised dots on the screen also indicates that they are very small). Yet all these small objects manage to build up a global interference pattern involving the presence of both slits (a pattern that vanishes if one slit is covered). This doesn't at first seem paradoxical, because a similar phenomenon occurs when a wave in water passes through two gaps of the right size, for example. In this case there is a medium present at each point through which the waves are travelling, so the influence has something to transmit it, and the resulting effect is easily explanied. So one's first guess is likely to be that the photons or electron in the 2-slit experiment are just be interfering with each other in a similar manner ... which wouldn't be paradoxical , of course ... except for the additional fact that the intensity of the source can be turned down until only one particle is passing through the apparatus at any given time - yet even in this case, the interference pattern still appears (eventually). This situation appears in need of urgent explanation because the apparent smallness of the particles in relation to the size of the equipment suggests that a single electron or photon can't possibly know about (be influenced by) a slit which it doesn't pass through, and which is, relatively speaking, a large distance away. Assuming a photon passes through the left hand slit, say, there is no known physical mechanism available to tell it about the existence of the right hand slit. Yet it will hit the screen in a position that is (statistically) determined by what looks like interference between waves passing through both slits. Hence the paradox. I'd agree that's a component but why is that on its own a more urgent problem than the action at a distance problems with Newton's force when gravity? Or all those contradictions that accumulated in the late 19th century, that people felt were pretty incomprehensible and shocking, yet no one at any time started talking about the need for an 'interpretation' that made it all feel explained at any price? How come everyone was willing to leave all those problems wide open for up to hundreds of years, until not just an interpretation and explanation but scientific next generation theory, complete with all the traits science the way they knew and loved were explicit and visible. They had worse problems than this electron? On there own terms, as the knowledge they had, that was important to them, that was being upended by the contradictions that they faced. Was it worse for them, or where they just willing to live with it, because they knew they just had not accumulated enough knowledge yet to begin to answer the questions? I'm not sure who you're arguing with here, if anyone. All I said was that the collapse of the wave function hasn't been directly observed. I guess you've agreed with that comment, if you want to move on to something else. Hi Liz, Let's call it something other than the wavefunction. On one side we have an equation,
Re: Max and FPI
On 03 Apr 2014, at 08:56, LizR wrote: As I understand it, the QM interpretation movement stalled for about 30 years before the MWI came along. My view on this has changed. I tend to think that the Newton/Huygens debate, which was a debate about the nature of light (particle, for Newton; wave for Huygens), was already a forerunner of the quantum mystery, as I have discovered that both Newton and Huygens were aware that light seemed to have both behavior, and that seemed already contradictory. Of course things get worse, when much more later de Broglie suggested that all piece of matter, notably the electrons, have that contradictory/paradoxical nature. De Brogie's thesis will be rejected, until Einstein will defend it, and that's a key moment in the birth of QM. We have to wait Born probability idea to get the modern interpretation problem. Neither Einstein, nor de Broglie will be happy with Born, and the taking at face value of the wave. De Broglie will defend, then abandon, then come back to the pilot wave (an hidden variable theory), but de Broglie will insist that it is a local phenomenon. Einstein, will never admit indeterminacy and non- locality (that he discovered), and well, we don't have to, if we are open to the MWI, which is only QM applied to the couple observer/ observed. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 4/2/2014 6:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The original proof of Gleason is not easy, but a more elementary proof (which remains not that simple) has been found by Cooke, Keane and Moran, and can be found in the (very good) book by Richard Hugues (you can find a PDF on the net). Only if you look for Richard Hughes 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 3 April 2014 16:56, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 3, 2014 3:07:26 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 3 April 2014 14:39, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that wavefunction collapse isn't an observed fact, which seems to me a fairly reasonable statement, because we can't observe entities like wavefunctions directly, and we certainly can't observe their collapse directly. Some people would say we can't observe *anything* directly, but under the normally understood meaning of observe it seems reasonable to say that we observe the images on our retinas, and hence that we can observe the dots on a screen, and we can also be reasonably said to be able to observe the pattern they make. I'm not saying anything about the MWI or Copenhagen or whatever here, merely that (in normal usage of observe) we can observe dots on a screen, and we can't observe abstract theoretical entities like wavefunctions, or their collapse. I apologize for the extensive subset of my much more extensive range of shortcomings causing up to all of that confusion. May I try again...this time boiling it all down to a single request? Based on what was at the time the widely accepted proxy for the more problematic meaning of 'observation', what was observed that gave rise in the first place to the widely perceived, arguably urgent, need for an Interpretation of what it meant? The observation described above, and shown in the pictures. The need for interpretation comes from the fact that the objects (electrons or photons, for example) involved are assumed to be far too small to be influenced by both slits in the experiment (the fact that they form localised dots on the screen also indicates that they are very small). Yet all these small objects manage to build up a global interference pattern involving the presence of both slits (a pattern that vanishes if one slit is covered). This doesn't at first seem paradoxical, because a similar phenomenon occurs when a wave in water passes through two gaps of the right size, for example. In this case there is a medium present at each point through which the waves are travelling, so the influence has something to transmit it, and the resulting effect is easily explanied. So one's first guess is likely to be that the photons or electron in the 2-slit experiment are just be interfering with each other in a similar manner ... which wouldn't be paradoxical , of course ... except for the additional fact that the intensity of the source can be turned down until only one particle is passing through the apparatus at any given time - yet even in this case, the interference pattern still appears (eventually). This situation appears in need of urgent explanation because the apparent smallness of the particles in relation to the size of the equipment suggests that a single electron or photon can't possibly know about (be influenced by) a slit which it doesn't pass through, and which is, relatively speaking, a large distance away. Assuming a photon passes through the left hand slit, say, there is no known physical mechanism available to tell it about the existence of the right hand slit. Yet it will hit the screen in a position that is (statistically) determined by what looks like interference between waves passing through both slits. Hence the paradox. I'd agree that's a component but why is that on its own a more urgent problem than the action at a distance problems with Newton's force when gravity? Or all those contradictions that accumulated in the late 19th century, that people felt were pretty incomprehensible and shocking, yet no one at any time started talking about the need for an 'interpretation' that made it all feel explained at any price? How come everyone was willing to leave all those problems wide open for up to hundreds of years, until not just an interpretation and explanation but scientific next generation theory, complete with all the traits science the way they knew and loved were explicit and visible. They had worse problems than this electron? On there own terms, as the knowledge they had, that was important to them, that was being upended by the contradictions that they faced. Was it worse for them, or where they just willing to live with it, because they knew they just had not accumulated enough knowledge yet to begin to answer the questions? I'm not sure who you're arguing with here, if anyone. All I said was that the collapse of the wave function hasn't been directly observed. I guess you've agreed with that comment, if you want to move on to something else. So, after that you moved on to what was the problem with the two slit experiment. OK, so I've explained that, and since you've moved on from that, I must assume you understood and agreed with the explanation. So what are you moving on to
Re: Max and FPI
On 02 Apr 2014, at 23:15, LizR wrote: As instructed I will have a look at Brent's proofs and see if I follow them, and agree... On 2 April 2014 15:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/1/2014 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: BTW, are you OK in the math thread? Are you OK, like Liz apparently, that the Kripke frame (W,R) respects A - []A iff R is symmetrical? Should I give the proof of the fact that the Kripke frame (W,R) respects []A - [][]A iff R is a transitive? Bruno Here's the ones I've done so far. One more to go. Hold off on that proof (or put a warning in the subject line so I can avoid reading it). Brent *** Show that (W, R) respects []A - A if and only if R is reflexive, R is reflexive implies (alpha R alpha) for all alpha. []A in alpha implies A is true in all beta where (alpha R beta), which includes the case beta=alpha. So R is reflexive implies (W,R) respects []A-A. I like more words, but I think I follow that and it comes out right. Assume R is not reflexive. Then there exists at least one world beta such that (alpha R beta) and ~(beta R alpha). Consider a valuation such that p=f in alpha and p=t in all beta. Then []p is true in alpha but p is false so []A-A is false in alpha for some A. R not reflexive implies []A-A is not respected for all alpha and all valuations. Yes that seems right, too. Brent obviously has a far more logical mind than I do, but I guess I already knew that. (W, R) respects []A - [][]A if and only R is transitive, R is transitive means that for all beta such that (alpha R beta) and all gamma such that (beta R gamma), (alpha R gamma). So every []A implies A=t in all beta and also A=t in all gamma. But A=t in all gamma means []A is true in beta, which in turn means [][]A is true in alpha. So R is transitive implies (W,R) respects []A-[][]A. Suppose R is not transitive, so for all beta (alpha R beta) and there are some gamma such that [(beta R gamma) and ~(alpha R gamma)]. Let A=t in beta, A=f in gamma. Then []A is true in alpha but []A isn't true in beta, so [][]A isn't true in alpha. So (W, R) respects []A - [][]A implies R is transitive. Yes, again, I eventually managed to follow that. You make it seem so easy. (W, R) respects A - []A if and only R is symmetrical, R symmetrical means that if (alpha R beta) then (beta R alpha). Suppose A is true in alpha; then A is true in beta (by symmetry of R) and this holds for all alpha and beta so []A in alpha. Suppose R is not symmetrical, so there is a pair of worlds (alpha R beta) and ~(beta R alpha). So consider V such that A=t in alpha and A=f in all worlds gamma such that (beta R gamma) then ~A in beta. So it would be false that []A in alpha. Again I an overawed. (W,R) respects []A - A if and only if R is ideal, R is ideal, means that for every alpha there is a beta such that (alpha R beta). Suppose []A is true in alpha, then A must be true in every world beta (alpha R beta) and there is a least on such beta, so A is true in alpha. Suppose R is not ideal, then there is a cul-de-sac alpha. For alpha []A is vacously true for all A, but A is false so []A-A is false. Yes. (W, R) respects A - ~[]A if and only if R is realist. R is realist means that for every world alpha there is a world beta such that (alpha R beta) and beta is cul-de-sac. Suppose A is true in beta, then A is true in alpha but A=f in beta so []A cannot be true in alpha. Hence A-~[]A in alpha where alpha is any non cul-de-sac world. Then consider a cul-de-sac world like beta; A is always false in beta so A-X is true in beta for any X, including ~[]A. I think my brain is starting to melt down, I can't work out if that proves if and only if ? By the way why realist ? By lack of imagination of my part. The idea that is that we can die at each instant (in each world) looks realist. A - ~[]A i the main axiom of the smallest theory of life/intelligence. OK, Liz, but sometimes you say it seems correct. You should perhaps try to convince your son, or Charles, to develop the confidence. Bruno -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
Re: Max and FPI
On 02 Apr 2014, at 23:20, LizR wrote: On 3 April 2014 04:37, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Suppose R is not transitive, so for all beta (alpha R beta) and there are some gamma such that [(beta R gamma) and ~(alpha R gamma)]. I cannot parse that sentence, I guess some word are missing. R is not transitive means that there exist alpha, beta and gamma, such that alpha R beta, and beta R gamma, and ~(alpha R gamma). I will guess that this is what you meant. That's what I took it to mean. (I didn't realise that wasn't what it said!) As a math teacher I am aware that when a student cannot solve a problem, it is very often due to their inability to read a text literally. To progress in math you have to try to be dumber, not cleverer. Especially in logic. OK Liz? Others? Feel free to ask definitions or explanations. Yes, at least at the point where I think very hard about each one, they all seem to make sense. Good, but you might need to train yourself so that seems becomes pretty sure. The next one is important, as it plays a role in the 'derivation of physics'. (W, R) respects A - []A if and only R is symmetrical, R symmetrical means that if (alpha R beta) then (beta R alpha). Yes, for all alpha and beta in W. Suppose A is true in alpha; then A is true in beta (by symmetry of R) and this holds for all alpha and beta so []A in alpha. And so A - []A is true in alpha. (Here we are using the deduction rule in the CPL context, which is valid. Later we will see it is not valid in the modal context). Suppose R is not symmetrical, so there is a pair of worlds (alpha R beta) and ~(beta R alpha). So consider V such that A=t in alpha and A=f in all worlds gamma such that (beta R gamma) then ~A in beta. So it would be false that []A in alpha. Liz told me this already! OK. Phew. (W,R) respects []A - A if and only if R is ideal, R is ideal, means that for every alpha there is a beta such that (alpha R beta). Suppose []A is true in alpha, then A must be true in every world beta (alpha R beta) and there is a least on such beta, so A is true in alpha. OK. Suppose R is not ideal, then there is a cul-de-sac alpha. For alpha []A is vacously true for all A, but A is false so []A-A is false. Yes, all cul-de-sac world are counterexample of []A - A. In the Kripke semantics, they are counterexamples of #, with # put for any proposition. (W, R) respects A - ~[]A if and only if R is realist. R is realist means that for every world alpha there is a world beta such that (alpha R beta) and beta is cul-de-sac. For every *transitory* world alpha. OK. The cul-de-sac world are still world! Suppose A is true in beta, then A is true in alpha but A=f in beta so []A cannot be true in alpha. Hence A-~[]A in alpha where alpha is any non cul-de-sac world. Then consider a cul-de- sac world like beta; A is always false in beta so A-X is true in beta for any X, including ~[]A. OK. Nice. So you proved that R is realist implies that (W, R) respects A - ~[]A. But you have still not prove that if R is *not* realist, (W,R) does not respect A - ~[]A (unlike all other cases). OK? You proved: (W, R) realist implies respects A - ~[]A, but not yet the converse, that respects A - ~[]A implies (W, R) realist. I let you search, and might justify this (with pre-warning to avoid spoiling!). And what about the euclidian multiverse? May be you did them? R is euclidian, or euclidean, if (aRb and aRc) implies bRc, for all a, b and c in W. (I use a for the greek alpha!) Proposition: (W,R) respects A - []A iff R is euclidian. Hmm. I'll think about that later. OK. The time you are using to learn is not important, unless you ... forget the work already done. For the long term memorizing, it is better to revise 2 minutes everyday, instead of learning day and night just before the exams :) Bruno -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 03 Apr 2014, at 01:16, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 3:40:18 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 Mar 2014, at 20:14, meekerdb wrote: On 3/31/2014 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 Mar 2014, at 19:04, meekerdb wrote: On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically observed fact actually not be. But would even that alone have been remotely near the ballpark of things taken seriously, had there not been extreme quantum strangeness irreconcilable at that time, with the most core, most fundamental accomplishments of science to date? MWI evacuates all weirdness from QM. It restores fully - determinacy - locality - physical realism The price is not that big, as nature is used to multiplied things, like the water molecules in the ocean, the stars in the sky, the galaxies, etc. Each time, the humans are shocked by this, and Gordiano Bruno get burned for saying that stars are other suns, and that they might have planets, with other living being. It is humbling, but not coneptually new, especially for a computationalist, which explains the MW from simple arithmetic, where you need only to believe in the consequence of addition and multiplication of integers. The price is not having a unified 'self' - which many people would consider a big price since all observation and record keeping which is used to empirically test theories assumes this unity. Really? If you observe X and you want to use that as empircal test of a theory it isn't helpful if your theory of the instruments says they also recorded not-X. It is helpful when it is part of the only theories which are working, like QM, or arithmetic. No it's not. It's reason the Born rule is needed and the source of the difficulty of interpreting probability in MWI and the 'white rabbit problem' in comp. In my opinion, Gleason theorem solves this problem for the case of QM. And if the Zs logic verifies some quite plausible conjecture, the case of comp is reduced to the case of QM. This is a technical point, 'course. But even if such solutions did not exist, the MWI remains understandable, which is not the case for QM+collapse. Is this how Science works Bruno? ? I just said that a theory can make sense, and another theory does not. QM+collapse is contradictory, or it introduces new axioms, and they can all be summed into some arbitrary dualist cut between macro and micro, or subject and object, etc. That a theory is good even when it fails tests deriving from other scientific and/or mathematical domains, or sub-components thereof, regarded at the high end of reliability, based on the accumulation of different, mutually independent, tests devised and passed? ? But QM, by which I always mean QM-without-collapse, is the theory which has been tested the most, and I think that it is the only theory who lived without being refuted for more than 10 years, except perhaps for thermodynamic. If that isn't a falsifiable event, then what is? But QM has not (yet) been falsified. Are you saying, the only event that really matters, is what is the best explanation currently available? That is totally contradicted, by the entirety of scientific history in terms of what actually happens you realize? actually happens? You can't bet that a theoiry is false because it is the best explanation. Nobody pretend that QM is true, but it works very well, and with comp there is some hope to justify it from a deeper principle (computationalism). So in that caseare you saying - like Popper, like Deutsch - the fact of that is all wrong or irrelevant and nothing to do with Real Science, which is all about throwing explanations regardless of quality everywhere a gap is spotted, if there's more than one, performing some amazingly rational and dispassionate fireplace discussion wearing crushed velvet jackets and smoking pipes, the way the best friends do the Friday evening the Time Traveller vanishes into time, and the Friday after he shoes up covered in lipsticky lovebites clutching a dodgy flower. I am not an expert in philosophy of science. My point was only that QM and MWI are the same theory. Is that how you're defining science? Because you do seem to be neglecting falsification - any practical possibility of it. I don't understand this remark at all. I am just saying that QM is equivalent with MWI (the quantum many, and perhaps even the comp many), and QM seems working pretty well, and then it confirms the comp MW prediction (and others one). The collapse is a metaphysical assumption unsupported by zero evidences, and contradicting QM. It seems to me. If you can give me one reference on an experimental confirmation of the collapse, give me a link. I did believe Bohr in his defense of the collapse, due to a perturbation, but after reading EPR, I
Re: Max and FPI
On 03 Apr 2014, at 05:12, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote: The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the fact other interpretations had similar flaws; as if the fact someone else is ill would make you less ill yourself. I think in the world of QM interpretations, with bugger all evidence to decide between them, the game is to even out the playing field in terms of flaws and then chase parsimony. Ofcourse, whether an infinite set of worlds is more or less parsimonious than just one + a few hidden variables, or one + a spooky wave function collapse, depends very much on what definition of parsimonious you find most fitting. MWI is refuted by the massive totally unexamined - some unrealized to this day - assumptions built in at the start. ? MWI seems to me to be the literal understanding of QM (without collapse). It is also a simple consequence of computationalism, except we get a multi-dreams and the question remains open if this defines a universe, a multiverse, or a multi-multiverses, etc. (results points toward a multiverse though). It's like, local realism - a reasonable assumed universal. Local realism is not part of QM assumption. It is a direct consequence of the linearity of the Schroedinger Equation, and the linearity of the tensor products. But only the bare bones. Assuming locarealism means locality as we perceive, As we infer from what we perceive. We cannot *perceive locality by itself. and classically seems to be. In; these dimensions. But what happens when science transforms through a major generalization? The hallmark is that not only theories get merged, broken up, such that everything looks different. But that the revolution stretchs right out to the conceptual framework itself...the basic concepts that are upfront necessary to be shared, for basic communication to take place. It's all concepts broken apart, while others merged together. We can put some faith in local realism, but in what dimensionality it's pure, we don't about that yet..we don't know.MWI assumes that it's a safe scientific known. It isn't. In fact everything is against that. Personally, even without comp and without QM, everything is conceptually more simpler than any one-thing approach, which always needs much more particular assumptions. There literally dozens of others. Like assuming major properties are duplicated as is between higher and lower macrostate layers. MWI'ers need to assume local realism at quantum levels as is. Unprecedented if true. Daft in other words. Is it not more simple to assume the same realism at all scale, that to bet on different one? When I throw this at them, the response if there is one is usually6 denial that MWI needs those massive assumptions and would not have happened without them. Arguments come the lines of MWI is derived clean from the wave function or by some other theoretical strtucture, involving simple assumptions only none of them things like local realism. I agree, except that local realism is, as I said above, a consequence of the SWE. They just don't get it, science, anymore. theories as internal theory structure get improved all the time as part of an ongoing progression. Building out an assumption is not a matter of improving theory structure alone. MWI is tied to assuming local realism for all time, because it was only the extreme and disturbing - incomprehensible even to the greats - character of quantum strangenessl. MWI is tied to it, because that is what it took hat an outrageous, unscientific notion like MWI could be taken seriously at all. Frankly, I believe the exact contrary. MWI is what you get from assuming the axioms of quantum mechanics, and that is the unitary evolution. MWI even now, has not defense for itself, without reference to quantum strangeness,, and restorations to classical determinism. Which I think would be enough to make it most plausible than any other (sur)-interpretation. But MWI, which is just the SWE seen from inside, restore not classical determinism, but also, well, local locality and well local realism. It's a quantum theory, and it's wrong, because it's assumptions are that the nature of reality is hard tied forever to principles, That's QM. That tomorrow we might discover that QM is false is just science. But if comp and/or QM is correct, the many-thing will remain with us, indeed. hard tied to the complexities of this dimension, this universe right here. What a joke. The harm done by this theory is immeasurable. A theory sterile for all
Re: Max and FPI
On 03 Apr 2014, at 08:49, meekerdb wrote: On 4/2/2014 6:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The original proof of Gleason is not easy, but a more elementary proof (which remains not that simple) has been found by Cooke, Keane and Moran, and can be found in the (very good) book by Richard Hugues (you can find a PDF on the net). Only if you look for Richard Hughes Oops sorry. (In french, Hugues is a common first name, without the second h). Normally Google proposes alternate spelling, when there is no more than few mistakes, so I doubt your statement, but thanks for helping me to realize there is a h more in that name. let me try: yes Google corrects it, apparently hugues does not seem exist. Showing results for richard hughes Search instead for Richard Hugues Well, if you search *only* on Richard Hughes you find a poet, then a musician, then a footballer, then a jockey player, then an architect, an evangelist, an optician, a minister, ... gosh the quantum physicists does not seem to appear quickly ... But all their names have the two h. Ah! There is french (of course) Richard Hugues, who is a ... computational biologist ! Bruno 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
Hi Richard, On 01 Apr 2014, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno, I have a problem with the Gleason Theorem because it appears to me to be saying that every possible quantum state is realized with equal probability at first, but the frequency at which each universe reoccurs is given by the FPI probabilities that are measured in controlled quantum experiments. If what I just said is true, I'm sure you can see my the source of my skepticism. So please correct my understanding of the Gleason Theorem. Richard Gleason theorem, on the contrary, shows that for Hilbert space with dimension 3, the measure, assumed to be totally additive, made on quantum propositions (i.e. closed subspaces of the Hilbert space) is given by the trace of some density operator, and this leads to the Born rules or its generalizations on mixed states. It does not use either the FPI nor the MWI, and somehow rules out the uniform probabilities for quantum states. The original proof of Gleason is not easy, but a more elementary proof (which remains not that simple) has been found by Cooke, Keane and Moran, and can be found in the (very good) book by Richard Hugues (you can find a PDF on the net). A constructive (and readable, and free!) proof has also been given by Richman and Bridges: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.42.9076rep=rep1type=pdf Bruno On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Apr 2014, at 03:33, meekerdb wrote: On 3/31/2014 6:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 1 April 2014 06:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: The price is not having a unified 'self' - which many people would consider a big price since all observation and record keeping which is used to empirically test theories assumes this unity. If you observe X and you want to use that as empircal test of a theory it isn't helpful if your theory of the instruments says they also recorded not-X. (I suspect some people would consider it a big price not to have a unified self for other reasons, too!) I can't see how it's worse for your theory to say that your instruments will record X and not X as opposed to saying they will record X or not X, but we don't know which. That's before the fact. I didn't write will. MWI is a theory that says when you read your instrument and it says X, it's only one of an infinite set some of which say X and some say not-X. The former explanation says there will be apparent but explicable randomness, the latter says there will be intrinsic and inexplicable randomness. But is it explicable. Bruno is careful to refer to uncertainty or indeterminancy. Those are not necessarily probabilities unless they can be quantified to satisfy Kolomogorov's axioms - and it's not clear to me that they can. The axioms require that the set of everything have measure 1. But in this case everything is ill defined and uncountably infinite. It might be definable though, like the consciousness of the universal machine. It is the least Turing emulable entity having some futures in the arithmetical reality. It is the first person mental state in front of the maximal FPI. In common applications of QM one assumes isolation and considers only a small (at least finite) set of possible results - which works FAPP. But in Everett and comp we know why, without having to invoke a mysterious pseudo-God-like selection, apparently. ISTM. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 02 Apr 2014, at 03:43, meekerdb wrote: On 4/1/2014 2:25 PM, LizR wrote: I just read the definition of Gleason's theorem on Wikipedia and now my brain is full. A for-dummies version would be appreciated... I think what Gleason proved is that the only consistent probability measure on a Hilbert space is given by the normalized inner product. But it's not clear that there is a probability measure on the MW. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20802/why-is-gleasons-theorem-not-enough-to-obtain-born-rule-in-many-worlds-interpret Interesting. It looks like, at first sight, that Gleason + the FPI (+ some abandon of the naïve view on worlds) might solve the Born Rule. I might dig on this when I have more time. I have to revise Quantum logic and algebra to do this, but musing on Gleason theorem augments my feeling that the Z1* logics might be closer to QM than I hope! Note that your link contains a link to the original proof of Gleason. Bruno 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 02 Apr 2014, at 04:45, meekerdb wrote: On 4/1/2014 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: BTW, are you OK in the math thread? Are you OK, like Liz apparently, that the Kripke frame (W,R) respects A - []A iff R is symmetrical? Should I give the proof of the fact that the Kripke frame (W,R) respects []A - [][]A iff R is a transitive? Bruno Here's the ones I've done so far. One more to go. Hold off on that proof (or put a warning in the subject line so I can avoid reading it). ? It looks like you did it below. Liz, try to see if you are convinced by Brent, before reading this post. Brent *** Show that (W, R) respects []A - A if and only if R is reflexive, R is reflexive implies (alpha R alpha) for all alpha. []A in alpha implies A is true in all beta where (alpha R beta), which includes the case beta=alpha. So R is reflexive implies (W,R) respects []A-A. OK. Assume R is not reflexive. Then there exists at least one world beta such that (alpha R beta) and ~(beta R alpha). Consider a valuation such that p=f in alpha and p=t in all beta. in all beta different from alpha (of course). OK. Then []p is true in alpha but p is false so []A-A is false in alpha for some A. R not reflexive implies []A-A is not respected for all alpha and all valuations. OK. (W, R) respects []A - [][]A if and only R is transitive, R is transitive means that for all beta such that (alpha R beta) and all gamma such that (beta R gamma), (alpha R gamma). So every []A implies A=t in all beta and also A=t in all gamma. But A=t in all gamma means []A is true in beta, which in turn means [][]A is true in alpha. So R is transitive implies (W,R) respects []A-[][]A. Nice direct proof. People can search an alternate proof using the reduction ad absurdum. Suppose R is not transitive, so for all beta (alpha R beta) and there are some gamma such that [(beta R gamma) and ~(alpha R gamma)]. I cannot parse that sentence, I guess some word are missing. R is not transitive means that there exist alpha, beta and gamma, such that alpha R beta, and beta R gamma, and ~(alpha R gamma). I will guess that this is what you meant. Let A=t in beta, OK. Or A=t in all the beta such that alpha R beta, but you can also assume alpha accesses only beta, to build the counterexample. A=f in gamma. Good choice, to build the counterexample. Then []A is true in alpha but []A isn't true in beta, so [][]A isn't true in alpha. So (W, R) respects []A - [][]A implies R is transitive. Very good, so the transitive case is closed! You should no more worry reading my posts :) OK Liz? Others? Feel free to ask definitions or explanations. The next one is important, as it plays a role in the 'derivation of physics'. (W, R) respects A - []A if and only R is symmetrical, R symmetrical means that if (alpha R beta) then (beta R alpha). Yes, for all alpha and beta in W. Suppose A is true in alpha; then A is true in beta (by symmetry of R) and this holds for all alpha and beta so []A in alpha. And so A - []A is true in alpha. (Here we are using the deduction rule in the CPL context, which is valid. Later we will see it is not valid in the modal context). Suppose R is not symmetrical, so there is a pair of worlds (alpha R beta) and ~(beta R alpha). So consider V such that A=t in alpha and A=f in all worlds gamma such that (beta R gamma) then ~A in beta. So it would be false that []A in alpha. Liz told me this already! OK. (W,R) respects []A - A if and only if R is ideal, R is ideal, means that for every alpha there is a beta such that (alpha R beta). Suppose []A is true in alpha, then A must be true in every world beta (alpha R beta) and there is a least on such beta, so A is true in alpha. OK. Suppose R is not ideal, then there is a cul-de-sac alpha. For alpha []A is vacously true for all A, but A is false so []A-A is false. Yes, all cul-de-sac world are counterexample of []A - A. In the Kripke semantics, they are counterexamples of #, with # put for any proposition. (W, R) respects A - ~[]A if and only if R is realist. R is realist means that for every world alpha there is a world beta such that (alpha R beta) and beta is cul-de-sac. For every *transitory* world alpha. OK. The cul-de-sac world are still world! Suppose A is true in beta, then A is true in alpha but A=f in beta so []A cannot be true in alpha. Hence A-~[]A in alpha where alpha is any non cul-de-sac world. Then consider a cul-de-sac world like beta; A is always false in beta so A-X is true in beta for any X, including ~[]A. OK. Nice. So you proved that R is realist implies that (W, R) respects A - ~[]A. But you have still not prove that if R is *not* realist, (W,R) does not respect A - ~[]A (unlike all other cases). OK? You proved: (W, R) realist implies respects A - ~[]A, but not
Re: Max and FPI
As instructed I will have a look at Brent's proofs and see if I follow them, and agree... On 2 April 2014 15:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/1/2014 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: BTW, are you OK in the math thread? Are you OK, like Liz apparently, that the Kripke frame (W,R) respects A - []A iff R is symmetrical? Should I give the proof of the fact that the Kripke frame (W,R) respects []A - [][]A iff R is a transitive? Bruno Here's the ones I've done so far. One more to go. Hold off on that proof (or put a warning in the subject line so I can avoid reading it). Brent *** Show that (W, R) respects []A - A if and only if R is reflexive, R is reflexive implies (alpha R alpha) for all alpha. []A in alpha implies A is true in all beta where (alpha R beta), which includes the case beta=alpha. So R is reflexive implies (W,R) respects []A-A. I like more words, but I think I follow that and it comes out right. Assume R is not reflexive. Then there exists at least one world beta such that (alpha R beta) and ~(beta R alpha). Consider a valuation such that p=f in alpha and p=t in all beta. Then []p is true in alpha but p is false so []A-A is false in alpha for some A. R not reflexive implies []A-A is not respected for all alpha and all valuations. Yes that seems right, too. Brent obviously has a far more logical mind than I do, but I guess I already knew that. (W, R) respects []A - [][]A if and only R is transitive, R is transitive means that for all beta such that (alpha R beta) and all gamma such that (beta R gamma), (alpha R gamma). So every []A implies A=t in all beta and also A=t in all gamma. But A=t in all gamma means []A is true in beta, which in turn means [][]A is true in alpha. So R is transitive implies (W,R) respects []A-[][]A. Suppose R is not transitive, so for all beta (alpha R beta) and there are some gamma such that [(beta R gamma) and ~(alpha R gamma)]. Let A=t in beta, A=f in gamma. Then []A is true in alpha but []A isn't true in beta, so [][]A isn't true in alpha. So (W, R) respects []A - [][]A implies R is transitive. Yes, again, I eventually managed to follow that. You make it seem so easy. (W, R) respects A - []A if and only R is symmetrical, R symmetrical means that if (alpha R beta) then (beta R alpha). Suppose A is true in alpha; then A is true in beta (by symmetry of R) and this holds for all alpha and beta so []A in alpha. Suppose R is not symmetrical, so there is a pair of worlds (alpha R beta) and ~(beta R alpha). So consider V such that A=t in alpha and A=f in all worlds gamma such that (beta R gamma) then ~A in beta. So it would be false that []A in alpha. Again I an overawed. (W,R) respects []A - A if and only if R is ideal, R is ideal, means that for every alpha there is a beta such that (alpha R beta). Suppose []A is true in alpha, then A must be true in every world beta (alpha R beta) and there is a least on such beta, so A is true in alpha. Suppose R is not ideal, then there is a cul-de-sac alpha. For alpha []A is vacously true for all A, but A is false so []A-A is false. Yes. (W, R) respects A - ~[]A if and only if R is realist. R is realist means that for every world alpha there is a world beta such that (alpha R beta) and beta is cul-de-sac. Suppose A is true in beta, then A is true in alpha but A=f in beta so []A cannot be true in alpha. Hence A-~[]A in alpha where alpha is any non cul-de-sac world. Then consider a cul-de-sac world like beta; A is always false in beta so A-X is true in beta for any X, including ~[]A. I think my brain is starting to melt down, I can't work out if that proves if and only if ? By the way why realist ? -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 3 April 2014 04:37, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Suppose R is not transitive, so for all beta (alpha R beta) and there are some gamma such that [(beta R gamma) and ~(alpha R gamma)]. I cannot parse that sentence, I guess some word are missing. R is not transitive means that there exist alpha, beta and gamma, such that alpha R beta, and beta R gamma, and ~(alpha R gamma). I will guess that this is what you meant. That's what I took it to mean. (I didn't realise that wasn't what it said!) OK Liz? Others? Feel free to ask definitions or explanations. Yes, at least at the point where I think very hard about each one, they all seem to make sense. The next one is important, as it plays a role in the 'derivation of physics'. (W, R) respects A - []A if and only R is symmetrical, R symmetrical means that if (alpha R beta) then (beta R alpha). Yes, for all alpha and beta in W. Suppose A is true in alpha; then A is true in beta (by symmetry of R) and this holds for all alpha and beta so []A in alpha. And so A - []A is true in alpha. (Here we are using the deduction rule in the CPL context, which is valid. Later we will see it is not valid in the modal context). Suppose R is not symmetrical, so there is a pair of worlds (alpha R beta) and ~(beta R alpha). So consider V such that A=t in alpha and A=f in all worlds gamma such that (beta R gamma) then ~A in beta. So it would be false that []A in alpha. Liz told me this already! OK. Phew. (W,R) respects []A - A if and only if R is ideal, R is ideal, means that for every alpha there is a beta such that (alpha R beta). Suppose []A is true in alpha, then A must be true in every world beta (alpha R beta) and there is a least on such beta, so A is true in alpha. OK. Suppose R is not ideal, then there is a cul-de-sac alpha. For alpha []A is vacously true for all A, but A is false so []A-A is false. Yes, all cul-de-sac world are counterexample of []A - A. In the Kripke semantics, they are counterexamples of #, with # put for any proposition. (W, R) respects A - ~[]A if and only if R is realist. R is realist means that for every world alpha there is a world beta such that (alpha R beta) and beta is cul-de-sac. For every *transitory* world alpha. OK. The cul-de-sac world are still world! Suppose A is true in beta, then A is true in alpha but A=f in beta so []A cannot be true in alpha. Hence A-~[]A in alpha where alpha is any non cul-de-sac world. Then consider a cul-de-sac world like beta; A is always false in beta so A-X is true in beta for any X, including ~[]A. OK. Nice. So you proved that R is realist implies that (W, R) respects A - ~[]A. But you have still not prove that if R is *not* realist, (W,R) does not respect A - ~[]A (unlike all other cases). OK? You proved: (W, R) realist implies respects A - ~[]A, but not yet the converse, that respects A - ~[]A implies (W, R) realist. I let you search, and might justify this (with pre-warning to avoid spoiling!). And what about the euclidian multiverse? May be you did them? R is euclidian, or euclidean, if (aRb and aRc) implies bRc, for all a, b and c in W. (I use a for the greek *alpha*!) Proposition: (W,R) respects A - []A iff R is euclidian. Hmm. I'll think about that later. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption which explains how we come to measure discrete values. Would mind helping me place your meaning in terms of mine Liz? , Say, if we imagine a process of stripping back the meaning of 'wave-function' based on the single goal only, of finding the common ground starting point, least open to different - likely mis-conception, very likely my side. On that basis, my stripped back wave-function is the pattern made on the in the two slit experiment, by all those particles coming through, where each one hits. Purely on that temporary definition alone, would we be on common ground (a) so far as it goes - given the goal - it's a legitimate definition (b) the wave function is an observed fact, and so is its collapse? . Else, if the only facts I'm managing to reveal is the embarrassing kind like the sorry ass paucity of my basic grasp of things, heydon't be embarrassed :O) Give it to me straight -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 3 April 2014 10:55, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption which explains how we come to measure discrete values. Would mind helping me place your meaning in terms of mine Liz? , Say, if we imagine a process of stripping back the meaning of 'wave-function' based on the single goal only, of finding the common ground starting point, least open to different - likely mis-conception, very likely my side. On that basis, my stripped back wave-function is the pattern made on the in the two slit experiment, by all those particles coming through, where each one hits. Purely on that temporary definition alone, would we be on common ground (a) so far as it goes - given the goal - it's a legitimate definition (b) the wave function is an observed fact, and so is its collapse? . My take on this is that the wave function is what is assumed to explain the interference pattern formed by the particles, and collapse is what is assumed, in the Copenhagen view, to explain why the pattern is made up of individual pointlike events. The Bohm and MWI (and probably the time-symmetry) views make different assumptions to explain this seemingly counter-intuitive result. Hence the observed fact is that an interference pattern builds up from many discrete events, and several hypotheses have been put forward to explain this, wavefunction collapse being one of them. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:10:18 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 3 April 2014 10:55, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption which explains how we come to measure discrete values. Would mind helping me place your meaning in terms of mine Liz? , Say, if we imagine a process of stripping back the meaning of 'wave-function' based on the single goal only, of finding the common ground starting point, least open to different - likely mis-conception, very likely my side. On that basis, my stripped back wave-function is the pattern made on the in the two slit experiment, by all those particles coming through, where each one hits. Purely on that temporary definition alone, would we be on common ground (a) so far as it goes - given the goal - it's a legitimate definition (b) the wave function is an observed fact, and so is its collapse? . My take on this is that the wave function is what is assumed to explain the interference pattern formed by the particles, and collapse is what is assumed, in the Copenhagen view, to explain why the pattern is made up of individual pointlike events. The Bohm and MWI (and probably the time-symmetry) views make different assumptions to explain this seemingly counter-intuitive result. Hence the observed fact is that an interference pattern builds up from many discrete events, and several hypotheses have been put forward to explain this, wavefunction collapse being one of them I've no criticism of that, save subjective that I still can't nail the common ground. Given that on the terms of 'temporarily stripping back' the way I said, doesn't have to satisfy the way you just said, beyond the minimal standard of being, alright as a gross simplification? I mean, it's reasonable a gross simplification would merge a distinction between the pattern on the backscreen and the nature intrinsic to the pattern itself, and the ultimate cause of that, to the pattern on the backscreen representing the impact points of particles or isn't it? If it isn't, then we can simplify back further, and just call the 'pattern on the backscreen'. We can simplify the 'collapse' back further and call that the pattern disappears. I'm not taking the piss Liz...it will help me to see a concrete common ground component of what is an experimentally observed fact. It's fine if you don't think that's the issue...it might not be in the end, but if we can agree on something that is an observed fact, we can probably use that to work out, how gross a simplification you think it is, vs I think it is. As things stand, the apparent indication all considered is that you think it's a simplification far greater and grosser than I think it is :O) -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 3 April 2014 11:46, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:10:18 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 3 April 2014 10:55, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption which explains how we come to measure discrete values. Would mind helping me place your meaning in terms of mine Liz? , Say, if we imagine a process of stripping back the meaning of 'wave-function' based on the single goal only, of finding the common ground starting point, least open to different - likely mis-conception, very likely my side. On that basis, my stripped back wave-function is the pattern made on the in the two slit experiment, by all those particles coming through, where each one hits. Purely on that temporary definition alone, would we be on common ground (a) so far as it goes - given the goal - it's a legitimate definition (b) the wave function is an observed fact, and so is its collapse? . My take on this is that the wave function is what is assumed to explain the interference pattern formed by the particles, and collapse is what is assumed, in the Copenhagen view, to explain why the pattern is made up of individual pointlike events. The Bohm and MWI (and probably the time-symmetry) views make different assumptions to explain this seemingly counter-intuitive result. Hence the observed fact is that an interference pattern builds up from many discrete events, and several hypotheses have been put forward to explain this, wavefunction collapse being one of them I've no criticism of that, save subjective that I still can't nail the common ground. Given that on the terms of 'temporarily stripping back' the way I said, doesn't have to satisfy the way you just said, beyond the minimal standard of being, alright as a gross simplification? I mean, it's reasonable a gross simplification would merge a distinction between the pattern on the backscreen and the nature intrinsic to the pattern itself, and the ultimate cause of that, to the pattern on the backscreen representing the impact points of particles or isn't it? Sorry I can't really parse that. If it isn't, then we can simplify back further, and just call the 'pattern on the backscreen'. We can simplify the 'collapse' back further and call that the pattern disappears. I'm not taking the piss Liz...it will help me to see a concrete common ground component of what is an experimentally observed fact. It's fine if you don't think that's the issue...it might not be in the end, but if we can agree on something that is an observed fact, we can probably use that to work out, how gross a simplification you think it is, vs I think it is. As things stand, the apparent indication all considered is that you think it's a simplification far greater and grosser than I think it is :O) What was wrong with my statement of the observed fact - an interference pattern builds up from many pointlike events ? The only thing to (perhaps) take issue with is the meaning of pointlike, I would say, which could be taken to mean small compared to the scale of the interference pattern. Here is an illustration: [image: Inline images 1] -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 3:40:18 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 Mar 2014, at 20:14, meekerdb wrote: On 3/31/2014 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 Mar 2014, at 19:04, meekerdb wrote: On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically observed fact actually not be. But would even that alone have been remotely near the ballpark of things taken seriously, had there not been extreme quantum strangeness irreconcilable at that time, with the most core, most fundamental accomplishments of science to date? MWI evacuates all weirdness from QM. It restores fully - determinacy - locality - physical realism The price is not that big, as nature is used to multiplied things, like the water molecules in the ocean, the stars in the sky, the galaxies, etc. Each time, the humans are shocked by this, and Gordiano Bruno get burned for saying that stars are other suns, and that they might have planets, with other living being. It is humbling, but not coneptually new, especially for a computationalist, which explains the MW from simple arithmetic, where you need only to believe in the consequence of addition and multiplication of integers. The price is not having a unified 'self' - which many people would consider a big price since all observation and record keeping which is used to empirically test theories assumes this unity. Really? If you observe X and you want to use that as empircal test of a theory it isn't helpful if your theory of the instruments says they also recorded not-X. It is helpful when it is part of the only theories which are working, like QM, or arithmetic. No it's not. It's reason the Born rule is needed and the source of the difficulty of interpreting probability in MWI and the 'white rabbit problem' in comp. In my opinion, Gleason theorem solves this problem for the case of QM. And if the Zs logic verifies some quite plausible conjecture, the case of comp is reduced to the case of QM. This is a technical point, 'course. But even if such solutions did not exist, the MWI remains understandable, which is not the case for QM+collapse. Is this how Science works Bruno? That a theory is good even when it fails tests deriving from other scientific and/or mathematical domains, or sub-components thereof, regarded at the high end of reliability, based on the accumulation of different, mutually independent, tests devised and passed? If that isn't a falsifiable event, then what is? Are you saying, the only event that really matters, is what is the best explanation currently available? That is totally contradicted, by the entirety of scientific history in terms of what actually happens you realize? So in that caseare you saying - like Popper, like Deutsch - the fact of that is all wrong or irrelevant and nothing to do with Real Science, which is all about throwing explanations regardless of quality everywhere a gap is spotted, if there's more than one, performing some amazingly rational and dispassionate fireplace discussion wearing crushed velvet jackets and smoking pipes, the way the best friends do the Friday evening the Time Traveller vanishes into time, and the Friday after he shoes up covered in lipsticky lovebites clutching a dodgy flower. Is that how you're defining science? Because you do seem to be neglecting falsification - any practical possibility of 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:03:51 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 3 April 2014 11:46, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:10:18 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 3 April 2014 10:55, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption which explains how we come to measure discrete values. Would mind helping me place your meaning in terms of mine Liz? , Say, if we imagine a process of stripping back the meaning of 'wave-function' based on the single goal only, of finding the common ground starting point, least open to different - likely mis-conception, very likely my side. On that basis, my stripped back wave-function is the pattern made on the in the two slit experiment, by all those particles coming through, where each one hits. Purely on that temporary definition alone, would we be on common ground (a) so far as it goes - given the goal - it's a legitimate definition (b) the wave function is an observed fact, and so is its collapse? . My take on this is that the wave function is what is assumed to explain the interference pattern formed by the particles, and collapse is what is assumed, in the Copenhagen view, to explain why the pattern is made up of individual pointlike events. The Bohm and MWI (and probably the time-symmetry) views make different assumptions to explain this seemingly counter-intuitive result. Hence the observed fact is that an interference pattern builds up from many discrete events, and several hypotheses have been put forward to explain this, wavefunction collapse being one of them I've no criticism of that, save subjective that I still can't nail the common ground. Given that on the terms of 'temporarily stripping back' the way I said, doesn't have to satisfy the way you just said, beyond the minimal standard of being, alright as a gross simplification? I mean, it's reasonable a gross simplification would merge a distinction between the pattern on the backscreen and the nature intrinsic to the pattern itself, and the ultimate cause of that, to the pattern on the backscreen representing the impact points of particles or isn't it? Sorry I can't really parse that. If it isn't, then we can simplify back further, and just call the 'pattern on the backscreen'. We can simplify the 'collapse' back further and call that the pattern disappears. I'm not taking the piss Liz...it will help me to see a concrete common ground component of what is an experimentally observed fact. It's fine if you don't think that's the issue...it might not be in the end, but if we can agree on something that is an observed fact, we can probably use that to work out, how gross a simplification you think it is, vs I think it is. As things stand, the apparent indication all considered is that you think it's a simplification far greater and grosser than I think it is :O) What was wrong with my statement of the observed fact - an interference pattern builds up from many pointlike events ? The only thing to (perhaps) take issue with is the meaning of pointlike, I would say, which could be taken to mean small compared to the scale of the interference pattern. Here is an illustration: [image: Inline images 1] Nothing wrong with it Liz, if you are willing to state what is an observed fact, and what sense you would also accept that observed fact could be entirely defined as - probably a simplification - within the bounds of what you actually think the wavefunction is really about, or the debate pertaining to that. Because...look I know all the stuff you just defined, about the backscreen pattern being representation of where the individual bits hit, the images, and so on. So that's a form of common ground which is great. But it doesn't confirm the common ground that I suggest we need to have this particular conversation. Which you obviously are under no obligation to have, of course. But I'm being dogmatic here...I don't see how to understand the reasonable distinction you are making, such that the patern on the backscreen, however you want to define, is an observable fact, and so is its disappearance. And yet, the disappearance of the wavefunction is not observable. I'm sure there's plenty of theory sitting behind that. But surely you can also nail it directly to what is observable, and is fact, in terms of that being NOT implicate of observability of the disappearnance of the wave function.. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
Re: Max and FPI
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:35:39 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:03:51 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 3 April 2014 11:46, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:10:18 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 3 April 2014 10:55, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption which explains how we come to measure discrete values. Would mind helping me place your meaning in terms of mine Liz? , Say, if we imagine a process of stripping back the meaning of 'wave-function' based on the single goal only, of finding the common ground starting point, least open to different - likely mis-conception, very likely my side. On that basis, my stripped back wave-function is the pattern made on the in the two slit experiment, by all those particles coming through, where each one hits. Purely on that temporary definition alone, would we be on common ground (a) so far as it goes - given the goal - it's a legitimate definition (b) the wave function is an observed fact, and so is its collapse? . My take on this is that the wave function is what is assumed to explain the interference pattern formed by the particles, and collapse is what is assumed, in the Copenhagen view, to explain why the pattern is made up of individual pointlike events. The Bohm and MWI (and probably the time-symmetry) views make different assumptions to explain this seemingly counter-intuitive result. Hence the observed fact is that an interference pattern builds up from many discrete events, and several hypotheses have been put forward to explain this, wavefunction collapse being one of them I've no criticism of that, save subjective that I still can't nail the common ground. Given that on the terms of 'temporarily stripping back' the way I said, doesn't have to satisfy the way you just said, beyond the minimal standard of being, alright as a gross simplification? I mean, it's reasonable a gross simplification would merge a distinction between the pattern on the backscreen and the nature intrinsic to the pattern itself, and the ultimate cause of that, to the pattern on the backscreen representing the impact points of particles or isn't it? Sorry I can't really parse that. If it isn't, then we can simplify back further, and just call the 'pattern on the backscreen'. We can simplify the 'collapse' back further and call that the pattern disappears. I'm not taking the piss Liz...it will help me to see a concrete common ground component of what is an experimentally observed fact. It's fine if you don't think that's the issue...it might not be in the end, but if we can agree on something that is an observed fact, we can probably use that to work out, how gross a simplification you think it is, vs I think it is. As things stand, the apparent indication all considered is that you think it's a simplification far greater and grosser than I think it is :O) What was wrong with my statement of the observed fact - an interference pattern builds up from many pointlike events ? The only thing to (perhaps) take issue with is the meaning of pointlike, I would say, which could be taken to mean small compared to the scale of the interference pattern. Here is an illustration: [image: Inline images 1] Nothing wrong with it Liz, if you are willing to state what is an observed fact, and what sense you would also accept that observed fact could be entirely defined as - probably a simplification - within the bounds of what you actually think the wavefunction is really about, or the debate pertaining to that. Because...look I know all the stuff you just defined, about the backscreen pattern being representation of where the individual bits hit, the images, and so on. So that's a form of common ground which is great. But it doesn't confirm the common ground that I suggest we need to have this particular conversation. Which you obviously are under no obligation to have, of course. But I'm being dogmatic here...I don't see how to understand the reasonable distinction you are making, such that the patern on the backscreen, however you want to define, is an observable fact, and so is its disappearance. And yet, the disappearance of the wavefunction is not observable. I'm sure there's plenty of theory sitting behind that. But surely you can also nail it directly to what is observable, and is fact, in terms of that being NOT implicate of observability of the disappearnance of the wave function.. I meant I'm not being dogmatic here. Not a Freudian slip at least so far as I dig within myself. Clearly, my brain does not like, or believe, the distinction that gets banded around here, that 'collapse' isn't 'observed'. It looks like magical made up nonsense to
Re: Max and FPI
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:40:21 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:35:39 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:03:51 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 3 April 2014 11:46, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:10:18 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 3 April 2014 10:55, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, March 31, 2014 6:41:55 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption which explains how we come to measure discrete values. Would mind helping me place your meaning in terms of mine Liz? , Say, if we imagine a process of stripping back the meaning of 'wave-function' based on the single goal only, of finding the common ground starting point, least open to different - likely mis-conception, very likely my side. On that basis, my stripped back wave-function is the pattern made on the in the two slit experiment, by all those particles coming through, where each one hits. Purely on that temporary definition alone, would we be on common ground (a) so far as it goes - given the goal - it's a legitimate definition (b) the wave function is an observed fact, and so is its collapse? . My take on this is that the wave function is what is assumed to explain the interference pattern formed by the particles, and collapse is what is assumed, in the Copenhagen view, to explain why the pattern is made up of individual pointlike events. The Bohm and MWI (and probably the time-symmetry) views make different assumptions to explain this seemingly counter-intuitive result. Hence the observed fact is that an interference pattern builds up from many discrete events, and several hypotheses have been put forward to explain this, wavefunction collapse being one of them I've no criticism of that, save subjective that I still can't nail the common ground. Given that on the terms of 'temporarily stripping back' the way I said, doesn't have to satisfy the way you just said, beyond the minimal standard of being, alright as a gross simplification? I mean, it's reasonable a gross simplification would merge a distinction between the pattern on the backscreen and the nature intrinsic to the pattern itself, and the ultimate cause of that, to the pattern on the backscreen representing the impact points of particles or isn't it? Sorry I can't really parse that. If it isn't, then we can simplify back further, and just call the 'pattern on the backscreen'. We can simplify the 'collapse' back further and call that the pattern disappears. I'm not taking the piss Liz...it will help me to see a concrete common ground component of what is an experimentally observed fact. It's fine if you don't think that's the issue...it might not be in the end, but if we can agree on something that is an observed fact, we can probably use that to work out, how gross a simplification you think it is, vs I think it is. As things stand, the apparent indication all considered is that you think it's a simplification far greater and grosser than I think it is :O) What was wrong with my statement of the observed fact - an interference pattern builds up from many pointlike events ? The only thing to (perhaps) take issue with is the meaning of pointlike, I would say, which could be taken to mean small compared to the scale of the interference pattern. Here is an illustration: [image: Inline images 1] Nothing wrong with it Liz, if you are willing to state what is an observed fact, and what sense you would also accept that observed fact could be entirely defined as - probably a simplification - within the bounds of what you actually think the wavefunction is really about, or the debate pertaining to that. Because...look I know all the stuff you just defined, about the backscreen pattern being representation of where the individual bits hit, the images, and so on. So that's a form of common ground which is great. But it doesn't confirm the common ground that I suggest we need to have this particular conversation. Which you obviously are under no obligation to have, of course. But I'm being dogmatic here...I don't see how to understand the reasonable distinction you are making, such that the patern on the backscreen, however you want to define, is an observable fact, and so is its disappearance. And yet, the disappearance of the wavefunction is not observable. I'm sure there's plenty of theory sitting behind that. But surely you can also nail it directly to what is observable, and is fact, in terms of that being NOT implicate of observability of the disappearnance of the wave function.. I meant I'm not being dogmatic here. Not a Freudian slip at least so far as I dig within myself. Clearly, my brain does not like, or believe, the distinction that gets banded around here,
Re: Max and FPI
gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that wavefunction collapse isn't an observed fact, which seems to me a fairly reasonable statement, because we can't observe entities like wavefunctions directly, and we certainly can't observe their collapse directly. Some people would say we can't observe *anything* directly, but under the normally understood meaning of observe it seems reasonable to say that we observe the images on our retinas, and hence that we can observe the dots on a screen, and we can also be reasonably said to be able to observe the pattern they make. I'm not saying anything about the MWI or Copenhagen or whatever here, merely that (in normal usage of observe) we can observe dots on a screen, and we can't observe abstract theoretical entities like wavefunctions, or their collapse. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that wavefunction collapse isn't an observed fact, which seems to me a fairly reasonable statement, because we can't observe entities like wavefunctions directly, and we certainly can't observe their collapse directly. Some people would say we can't observe *anything* directly, but under the normally understood meaning of observe it seems reasonable to say that we observe the images on our retinas, and hence that we can observe the dots on a screen, and we can also be reasonably said to be able to observe the pattern they make. I'm not saying anything about the MWI or Copenhagen or whatever here, merely that (in normal usage of observe) we can observe dots on a screen, and we can't observe abstract theoretical entities like wavefunctions, or their collapse. I apologize for the extensive subset of my much more extensive range of shortcomings causing up to all of that confusion. May I try again...this time boiling it all down to a single request? Based on what was at the time the widely accepted proxy for the more problematic meaning of 'observation', what was observed that gave rise in the first place to the widely perceived, arguably urgent, need for an Interpretation of what it meant? Hopefully you're good-to-go answering the question on those terms. Or to say what you need additional clarification about that then you would be, that is linked to somethiing tangible for me...like a particular word or phrase. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 3 April 2014 14:39, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that wavefunction collapse isn't an observed fact, which seems to me a fairly reasonable statement, because we can't observe entities like wavefunctions directly, and we certainly can't observe their collapse directly. Some people would say we can't observe *anything* directly, but under the normally understood meaning of observe it seems reasonable to say that we observe the images on our retinas, and hence that we can observe the dots on a screen, and we can also be reasonably said to be able to observe the pattern they make. I'm not saying anything about the MWI or Copenhagen or whatever here, merely that (in normal usage of observe) we can observe dots on a screen, and we can't observe abstract theoretical entities like wavefunctions, or their collapse. I apologize for the extensive subset of my much more extensive range of shortcomings causing up to all of that confusion. May I try again...this time boiling it all down to a single request? Based on what was at the time the widely accepted proxy for the more problematic meaning of 'observation', what was observed that gave rise in the first place to the widely perceived, arguably urgent, need for an Interpretation of what it meant? The observation described above, and shown in the pictures. The need for interpretation comes from the fact that the objects (electrons or photons, for example) involved are assumed to be far too small to be influenced by both slits in the experiment (the fact that they form localised dots on the screen also indicates that they are very small). Yet all these small objects manage to build up a global interference pattern involving the presence of both slits (a pattern that vanishes if one slit is covered). This doesn't at first seem paradoxical, because a similar phenomenon occurs when a wave in water passes through two gaps of the right size, for example. In this case there is a medium present at each point through which the waves are travelling, so the influence has something to transmit it, and the resulting effect is easily explanied. So one's first guess is likely to be that the photons or electron in the 2-slit experiment are just be interfering with each other in a similar manner ... which wouldn't be paradoxical , of course ... except for the additional fact that the intensity of the source can be turned down until only one particle is passing through the apparatus at any given time - yet even in this case, the interference pattern still appears (eventually). This situation appears in need of urgent explanation because the apparent smallness of the particles in relation to the size of the equipment suggests that a single electron or photon can't possibly know about (be influenced by) a slit which it doesn't pass through, and which is, relatively speaking, a large distance away. Assuming a photon passes through the left hand slit, say, there is no known physical mechanism available to tell it about the existence of the right hand slit. Yet it will hit the screen in a position that is (statistically) determined by what looks like interference between waves passing through both slits. Hence the paradox. Hopefully you're good-to-go answering the question on those terms. Or to say what you need additional clarification about that then you would be, that is linked to somethiing tangible for me...like a particular word or phrase. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote: The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the fact other interpretations had similar flaws; as if the fact someone else is ill would make you less ill yourself. I think in the world of QM interpretations, with bugger all evidence to decide between them, the game is to even out the playing field in terms of flaws and then chase parsimony. Ofcourse, whether an infinite set of worlds is more or less parsimonious than just one + a few hidden variables, or one + a spooky wave function collapse, depends very much on what definition of parsimonious you find most fitting. MWI is refuted by the massive totally unexamined - some unrealized to this day - assumptions built in at the start. ? MWI seems to me to be the literal understanding of QM (without collapse). It is also a simple consequence of computationalism, except we get a multi-dreams and the question remains open if this defines a universe, a multiverse, or a multi-multiverses, etc. (results points toward a multiverse though). It's like, local realism - a reasonable assumed universal. Local realism is not part of QM assumption. It is a direct consequence of the linearity of the Schroedinger Equation, and the linearity of the tensor products. But only the bare bones. Assuming locarealism means locality as we perceive, As we infer from what we perceive. We cannot *perceive locality by itself. and classically seems to be. In; these dimensions. But what happens when science transforms through a major generalization? The hallmark is that not only theories get merged, broken up, such that everything looks different. But that the revolution stretchs right out to the conceptual framework itself...the basic concepts that are upfront necessary to be shared, for basic communication to take place. It's all concepts broken apart, while others merged together. We can put some faith in local realism, but in what dimensionality it's pure, we don't about that yet..we don't know.MWI assumes that it's a safe scientific known. It isn't. In fact everything is against that. Personally, even without comp and without QM, everything is conceptually more simpler than any one-thing approach, which always needs much more particular assumptions. There literally dozens of others. Like assuming major properties are duplicated as is between higher and lower macrostate layers. MWI'ers need to assume local realism at quantum levels as is. Unprecedented if true. Daft in other words. Is it not more simple to assume the same realism at all scale, that to bet on different one? When I throw this at them, the response if there is one is usually6 denial that MWI needs those massive assumptions and would not have happened without them. Arguments come the lines of MWI is derived clean from the wave function or by some other theoretical strtucture, involving simple assumptions only none of them things like local realism. I agree, except that local realism is, as I said above, a consequence of the SWE. They just don't get it, science, anymore. theories as internal theory structure get improved all the time as part of an ongoing progression. Building out an assumption is not a matter of improving theory structure alone. MWI is tied to assuming local realism for all time, because it was only the extreme and disturbing - incomprehensible even to the greats - character of quantum strangenessl. MWI is tied to it, because that is what it took hat an outrageous, unscientific notion like MWI could be taken seriously at all. Frankly, I believe the exact contrary. MWI is what you get from assuming the axioms of quantum mechanics, and that is the unitary evolution. MWI even now, has not defense for itself, without reference to quantum strangeness,, and restorations to classical determinism. Which I think would be enough to make it most plausible than any other (sur)-interpretation. But MWI, which is just the SWE seen from inside, restore not classical determinism, but also, well, local locality and well local realism. It's a quantum theory, and it's wrong, because it's assumptions are that the nature of reality is hard tied forever to principles, That's QM. That tomorrow we might discover that QM is false is just science. But if comp and/or QM is correct, the many-thing will remain with us, indeed. hard tied to the complexities of this dimension, this universe right here. What a joke. The harm done by this theory is immeasurable. A theory sterile for all time, placed all
Re: Max and FPI
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 3:07:26 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 3 April 2014 14:39, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:24:28 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: gbhibbsa, I'm getting a bit confused here. All I said is that wavefunction collapse isn't an observed fact, which seems to me a fairly reasonable statement, because we can't observe entities like wavefunctions directly, and we certainly can't observe their collapse directly. Some people would say we can't observe *anything* directly, but under the normally understood meaning of observe it seems reasonable to say that we observe the images on our retinas, and hence that we can observe the dots on a screen, and we can also be reasonably said to be able to observe the pattern they make. I'm not saying anything about the MWI or Copenhagen or whatever here, merely that (in normal usage of observe) we can observe dots on a screen, and we can't observe abstract theoretical entities like wavefunctions, or their collapse. I apologize for the extensive subset of my much more extensive range of shortcomings causing up to all of that confusion. May I try again...this time boiling it all down to a single request? Based on what was at the time the widely accepted proxy for the more problematic meaning of 'observation', what was observed that gave rise in the first place to the widely perceived, arguably urgent, need for an Interpretation of what it meant? The observation described above, and shown in the pictures. The need for interpretation comes from the fact that the objects (electrons or photons, for example) involved are assumed to be far too small to be influenced by both slits in the experiment (the fact that they form localised dots on the screen also indicates that they are very small). Yet all these small objects manage to build up a global interference pattern involving the presence of both slits (a pattern that vanishes if one slit is covered). This doesn't at first seem paradoxical, because a similar phenomenon occurs when a wave in water passes through two gaps of the right size, for example. In this case there is a medium present at each point through which the waves are travelling, so the influence has something to transmit it, and the resulting effect is easily explanied. So one's first guess is likely to be that the photons or electron in the 2-slit experiment are just be interfering with each other in a similar manner ... which wouldn't be paradoxical , of course ... except for the additional fact that the intensity of the source can be turned down until only one particle is passing through the apparatus at any given time - yet even in this case, the interference pattern still appears (eventually). This situation appears in need of urgent explanation because the apparent smallness of the particles in relation to the size of the equipment suggests that a single electron or photon can't possibly know about (be influenced by) a slit which it doesn't pass through, and which is, relatively speaking, a large distance away. Assuming a photon passes through the left hand slit, say, there is no known physical mechanism available to tell it about the existence of the right hand slit. Yet it will hit the screen in a position that is (statistically) determined by what looks like interference between waves passing through both slits. Hence the paradox. I'd agree that's a component but why is that on its own a more urgent problem than the action at a distance problems with Newton's force when gravity? Or all those contradictions that accumulated in the late 19th century, that people felt were pretty incomprehensible and shocking, yet no one at any time started talking about the need for an 'interpretation' that made it all feel explained at any price? How come everyone was willing to leave all those problems wide open for up to hundreds of years, until not just an interpretation and explanation but scientific next generation theory, complete with all the traits science the way they knew and loved were explicit and visible. They had worse problems than this electron? On there own terms, as the knowledge they had, that was important to them, that was being upended by the contradictions that they faced. Was it worse for them, or where they just willing to live with it, because they knew they just had not accumulated enough knowledge yet to begin to answer the questions? The Interpretation Movement, was pretty unprecedented in that sense. That an explanation,a way to make sense ofwas raised over everything else, including whether and what extent that explanation inherited any of the traits most fundamental, most unique, to science and science only. MWI hasn't got one. Not one. Or name one, and explain why it's fundamental to science, and unique to science and only science. There are some parts you
Re: Max and FPI
On 31 Mar 2014, at 20:14, meekerdb wrote: On 3/31/2014 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 Mar 2014, at 19:04, meekerdb wrote: On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically observed fact actually not be. But would even that alone have been remotely near the ballpark of things taken seriously, had there not been extreme quantum strangeness irreconcilable at that time, with the most core, most fundamental accomplishments of science to date? MWI evacuates all weirdness from QM. It restores fully - determinacy - locality - physical realism The price is not that big, as nature is used to multiplied things, like the water molecules in the ocean, the stars in the sky, the galaxies, etc. Each time, the humans are shocked by this, and Gordiano Bruno get burned for saying that stars are other suns, and that they might have planets, with other living being. It is humbling, but not coneptually new, especially for a computationalist, which explains the MW from simple arithmetic, where you need only to believe in the consequence of addition and multiplication of integers. The price is not having a unified 'self' - which many people would consider a big price since all observation and record keeping which is used to empirically test theories assumes this unity. Really? If you observe X and you want to use that as empircal test of a theory it isn't helpful if your theory of the instruments says they also recorded not-X. It is helpful when it is part of the only theories which are working, like QM, or arithmetic. No it's not. It's reason the Born rule is needed and the source of the difficulty of interpreting probability in MWI and the 'white rabbit problem' in comp. In my opinion, Gleason theorem solves this problem for the case of QM. And if the Zs logic verifies some quite plausible conjecture, the case of comp is reduced to the case of QM. This is a technical point, 'course. But even if such solutions did not exist, the MWI remains understandable, which is not the case for QM+collapse. It provides a clear 3p pictures, and reduces the measure problem to a (solved or not) phenomenological problem. Any collapse or physical selection theory seems to add something to the wave, which seems always to be justified in an ad hoc restriction of what the wave described. We need only the unity of the first person self, from the first person self point of view, and that is guarantied by the comp hypothesis. Guarantee by definition doesn't mean much. Almost. It is guarantied once you are willing to believe that the brain is an organic Turing emulable machine, or that consciousness is sub-susbt-level computations invariant. Ah! Brent, this list is called everything because it is open to the idea that everything, or nothing, is simpler than any mono- thing. I know why it's called that, but I assumed that I didn't have to be true believer to participate. On the contrary, that is welcome, I think, as some of us have a taste for discussing and are skeptic at all level. I am certainly not true believer in anything, (with one common exception like consciousness), but I like to take a theory seriously and push its logic up to the possible contradiction. The point here was a remind that some people believe that a simple theory, which provides an explanation for the phenomenology, is better than a more complex theory, even if that later satisfies some human coquetry like being 3p unique. We don't know the truth, but we can evaluate the plausibilities and the consistencies, etc. I can understand that it is counter-intuitive, but the brain has not been programmed for the big picture, so we can expect the possible truth to be shocking, it seems to me. Alas, there is a temptation regard how shocking a theory is as evidence for it. We can only hope God is not malicious. Now, I don't use shocking as evidences, given that I defend MW as more plausible than ~MW, indeed by arguing that it is more conservative, as it preserves (or keep the hope of them being preserved) locality, determinacy, and some form of physical realism. BTW, are you OK in the math thread? Are you OK, like Liz apparently, that the Kripke frame (W,R) respects A - []A iff R is symmetrical? Should I give the proof of the fact that the Kripke frame (W,R) respects []A - [][]A iff R is a transitive? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit
Re: Max and FPI
On 01 Apr 2014, at 03:33, meekerdb wrote: On 3/31/2014 6:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 1 April 2014 06:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: The price is not having a unified 'self' - which many people would consider a big price since all observation and record keeping which is used to empirically test theories assumes this unity. If you observe X and you want to use that as empircal test of a theory it isn't helpful if your theory of the instruments says they also recorded not-X. (I suspect some people would consider it a big price not to have a unified self for other reasons, too!) I can't see how it's worse for your theory to say that your instruments will record X and not X as opposed to saying they will record X or not X, but we don't know which. That's before the fact. I didn't write will. MWI is a theory that says when you read your instrument and it says X, it's only one of an infinite set some of which say X and some say not-X. The former explanation says there will be apparent but explicable randomness, the latter says there will be intrinsic and inexplicable randomness. But is it explicable. Bruno is careful to refer to uncertainty or indeterminancy. Those are not necessarily probabilities unless they can be quantified to satisfy Kolomogorov's axioms - and it's not clear to me that they can. The axioms require that the set of everything have measure 1. But in this case everything is ill defined and uncountably infinite. It might be definable though, like the consciousness of the universal machine. It is the least Turing emulable entity having some futures in the arithmetical reality. It is the first person mental state in front of the maximal FPI. In common applications of QM one assumes isolation and considers only a small (at least finite) set of possible results - which works FAPP. But in Everett and comp we know why, without having to invoke a mysterious pseudo-God-like selection, apparently. ISTM. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
Bruno, I have a problem with the Gleason Theorem because it appears to me to be saying that every possible quantum state is realized with equal probability at first, but the frequency at which each universe reoccurs is given by the FPI probabilities that are measured in controlled quantum experiments. If what I just said is true, I'm sure you can see my the source of my skepticism. So please correct my understanding of the Gleason Theorem. Richard On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Apr 2014, at 03:33, meekerdb wrote: On 3/31/2014 6:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 1 April 2014 06:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: The price is not having a unified 'self' - which many people would consider a big price since all observation and record keeping which is used to empirically test theories assumes this unity. If you observe X and you want to use that as empircal test of a theory it isn't helpful if your theory of the instruments says they also recorded not-X. (I suspect some people would consider it a big price not to have a unified self for other reasons, too!) I can't see how it's worse for your theory to say that your instruments will record X and not X as opposed to saying they will record X or not X, but we don't know which. That's before the fact. I didn't write will. MWI is a theory that says when you read your instrument and it says X, it's only one of an infinite set some of which say X and some say not-X. The former explanation says there will be apparent but explicable randomness, the latter says there will be intrinsic and inexplicable randomness. But is it explicable. Bruno is careful to refer to uncertainty or indeterminancy. Those are not necessarily probabilities unless they can be quantified to satisfy Kolomogorov's axioms - and it's not clear to me that they can. The axioms require that the set of everything have measure 1. But in this case everything is ill defined and uncountably infinite. It might be definable though, like the consciousness of the universal machine. It is the least Turing emulable entity having some futures in the arithmetical reality. It is the first person mental state in front of the maximal FPI. In common applications of QM one assumes isolation and considers only a small (at least finite) set of possible results - which works FAPP. But in Everett and comp we know why, without having to invoke a mysterious pseudo-God-like selection, apparently. ISTM. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
I just read the definition of Gleason's theorem on Wikipedia and now my brain is full. A for-dummies version would be appreciated... -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 4/1/2014 2:25 PM, LizR wrote: I just read the definition of Gleason's theorem on Wikipedia and now my brain is full. A for-dummies version would be appreciated... I think what Gleason proved is that the only consistent probability measure on a Hilbert space is given by the normalized inner product. But it's not clear that there is a probability measure on the MW. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20802/why-is-gleasons-theorem-not-enough-to-obtain-born-rule-in-many-worlds-interpret 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
Eek! Am I a mystical many-worlder (on days that don't have a T in them) ? Thank you that was very interesting, although I still don't know what to make of quantum theory (that's good, right?) By the way I've seen Kirk on a rock before somewhere, maybe it was in a parallel universe... On 2 April 2014 14:43, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/1/2014 2:25 PM, LizR wrote: I just read the definition of Gleason's theorem on Wikipedia and now my brain is full. A for-dummies version would be appreciated... I think what Gleason proved is that the only consistent probability measure on a Hilbert space is given by the normalized inner product. But it's not clear that there is a probability measure on the MW. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20802/why-is- gleasons-theorem-not-enough-to-obtain-born-rule-in-many-worlds-interpret 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
Apparently my conception of Gleason's Theorem is incorrect. However, I was struck by something the author of the answer, Mitchell Porter, said that is exactly what I thought the Gleason Theorem was about: In my opinion, the sensible interpretation of a nonuniform measure in a multiverse theory (insofar as one can ever be sensible about such matters) is that it means that the worlds are duplicated, in proportion to the deviation from uniformity. The true measure will be the natural, uniform one, and the Born frequencies have to come about from the duplication of worlds. On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:43 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/1/2014 2:25 PM, LizR wrote: I just read the definition of Gleason's theorem on Wikipedia and now my brain is full. A for-dummies version would be appreciated... I think what Gleason proved is that the only consistent probability measure on a Hilbert space is given by the normalized inner product. But it's not clear that there is a probability measure on the MW. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20802/why-is- gleasons-theorem-not-enough-to-obtain-born-rule-in-many-worlds-interpret 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 4/1/2014 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: BTW, are you OK in the math thread? Are you OK, like Liz apparently, that the Kripke frame (W,R) respects A - []A iff R is symmetrical? Should I give the proof of the fact that the Kripke frame (W,R) respects []A - [][]A iff R is a transitive? Bruno Here's the ones I've done so far. One more to go. Hold off on that proof (or put a warning in the subject line so I can avoid reading it). Brent *** Show that (W, R) respects []A - A if and only if R is reflexive, R is reflexive implies (alpha R alpha) for all alpha. []A in alpha implies A is true in all beta where (alpha R beta), which includes the case beta=alpha. So R is reflexive implies (W,R) respects []A-A. Assume R is not reflexive. Then there exists at least one world beta such that (alpha R beta) and ~(beta R alpha). Consider a valuation such that p=f in alpha and p=t in all beta. Then []p is true in alpha but p is false so []A-A is false in alpha for some A. R not reflexive implies []A-A is not respected for all alpha and all valuations. (W, R) respects []A - [][]A if and only R is transitive, R is transitive means that for all beta such that (alpha R beta) and all gamma such that (beta R gamma), (alpha R gamma). So every []A implies A=t in all beta and also A=t in all gamma. But A=t in all gamma means []A is true in beta, which in turn means [][]A is true in alpha. So R is transitive implies (W,R) respects []A-[][]A. Suppose R is not transitive, so for all beta (alpha R beta) and there are some gamma such that [(beta R gamma) and ~(alpha R gamma)]. Let A=t in beta, A=f in gamma. Then []A is true in alpha but []A isn't true in beta, so [][]A isn't true in alpha. So (W, R) respects []A - [][]A implies R is transitive. (W, R) respects A - []A if and only R is symmetrical, R symmetrical means that if (alpha R beta) then (beta R alpha). Suppose A is true in alpha; then A is true in beta (by symmetry of R) and this holds for all alpha and beta so []A in alpha. Suppose R is not symmetrical, so there is a pair of worlds (alpha R beta) and ~(beta R alpha). So consider V such that A=t in alpha and A=f in all worlds gamma such that (beta R gamma) then ~A in beta. So it would be false that []A in alpha. (W,R) respects []A - A if and only if R is ideal, R is ideal, means that for every alpha there is a beta such that (alpha R beta). Suppose []A is true in alpha, then A must be true in every world beta (alpha R beta) and there is a least on such beta, so A is true in alpha. Suppose R is not ideal, then there is a cul-de-sac alpha. For alpha []A is vacously true for all A, but A is false so []A-A is false. (W, R) respects A - ~[]A if and only if R is realist. R is realist means that for every world alpha there is a world beta such that (alpha R beta) and beta is cul-de-sac. Suppose A is true in beta, then A is true in alpha but A=f in beta so []A cannot be true in alpha. Hence A-~[]A in alpha where alpha is any non cul-de-sac world. Then consider a cul-de-sac world like beta; A is always false in beta so A-X is true in beta for any X, including ~[]A. *** -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 31 Mar 2014, at 07:41, LizR wrote: I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption which explains how we come to measure discrete values. On 31 March 2014 16:27, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote: The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the fact other interpretations had similar flaws; as if the fact someone else is ill would make you less ill yourself. I think in the world of QM interpretations, with bugger all evidence to decide between them, the game is to even out the playing field in terms of flaws and then chase parsimony. Ofcourse, whether an infinite set of worlds is more or less parsimonious than just one + a few hidden variables, or one + a spooky wave function collapse, depends very much on what definition of parsimonious you find most fitting. MWI is refuted by the massive totally unexamined - some unrealized to this day - assumptions built in at the start. ? MWI seems to me to be the literal understanding of QM (without collapse). It is also a simple consequence of computationalism, except we get a multi-dreams and the question remains open if this defines a universe, a multiverse, or a multi-multiverses, etc. (results points toward a multiverse though). How can 'without collapse' in any sense be literal? Collapse is an empirically observed fact. That is what I thought. I thought for some time (many years ago) that computationalism was false, because it implies MW, in some testable way if we look below our substitution level, but when reading QM textbook, I was struck by the collapse, and I thought this was an empiric facts. But I didn't find serious paper showing this, and got the QM light when discovering Everett. From this I became rather persuaded that QM confirms the comp proliferation of realities, up to the existence of the arithmetical measure problem. Some experience with partial superposition (sometimes called schroedinger kitten) have been proposed as evidence for a collapse, but they are as much evidence of the MWI. An *apparent* collapse, can be as well considered as an apparent universe differentiation. OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically observed fact actually not be. But would even that alone have been remotely near the ballpark of things taken seriously, had there not been extreme quantum strangeness irreconcilable at that time, with the most core, most fundamental accomplishments of science to date? MWI evacuates all weirdness from QM. It restores fully - determinacy - locality - physical realism The price is not that big, as nature is used to multiplied things, like the water molecules in the ocean, the stars in the sky, the galaxies, etc. Each time, the humans are shocked by this, and Gordiano Bruno get burned for saying that stars are other suns, and that they might have planets, with other living being. It is humbling, but not coneptually new, especially for a computationalist, which explains the MW from simple arithmetic, where you need only to believe in the consequence of addition and multiplication of integers. MWI is an extreme explanation that makes the universe infinity more complex and undiscoverable than it was before. On the contrary. The *whole universe* becomes conceptually much simpler. The mono-universe is more complex, as it needs the same explanation accompanied by a selection principle contradicting the simple laws. An intolerably extreme theory unprecedented in all science, to be taken seriously, requires an even more intolerable crisis. And it just so happens at that very same point, such an extremity confronted science...quantum strangeness. But hold on a mo...I said MWI blasted complexity to the infinite limit. But that isn't true is it? MWI is Occam consistent, so the complexity malarkey is refuted good and proper. I will gladly stand corrected on that then. Ah! OK. But you would agree, wouldn't you, that were it not for that Occam argument MWI would be placed in an untenlaable position? I am not sure. Not only there are no evidence for a collapse, but there is no clear definition of what it would be. The SWE is incompatible with the collapse. If the collapse is true, QM is false. That's why Bohr insists that QM is false for the macro-reality. But, since then, QM has been confirmed at all scales, and is used in the foundation of cosmology, etc. Glad you can agree about that. You should all really be able to agree about the hard-linking of MWI and quantumht strangeness. There's no reason why believing MW should obscure
Re: Max and FPI
Ghibbsa, I answered to this in my reply to Liz. Usually I try to avoid this, but I confused the post. Sorry to Liz too. Best, Bruno On 31 Mar 2014, at 05:27, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote: The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the fact other interpretations had similar flaws; as if the fact someone else is ill would make you less ill yourself. I think in the world of QM interpretations, with bugger all evidence to decide between them, the game is to even out the playing field in terms of flaws and then chase parsimony. Ofcourse, whether an infinite set of worlds is more or less parsimonious than just one + a few hidden variables, or one + a spooky wave function collapse, depends very much on what definition of parsimonious you find most fitting. MWI is refuted by the massive totally unexamined - some unrealized to this day - assumptions built in at the start. ? MWI seems to me to be the literal understanding of QM (without collapse). It is also a simple consequence of computationalism, except we get a multi-dreams and the question remains open if this defines a universe, a multiverse, or a multi-multiverses, etc. (results points toward a multiverse though). How can 'without collapse' in any sense be literal? Collapse is an empirically observed fact. OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically observed fact actually not be. But would even that alone have been remotely near the ballpark of things taken seriously, had there not been extreme quantum strangeness irreconcilable at that time, with the most core, most fundamental accomplishments of science to date? MWI is an extreme explanation that makes the universe infinity more complex and undiscoverable than it was before. An intolerably extreme theory unprecedented in all science, to be taken seriously, requires an even more intolerable crisis. And it just so happens at that very same point, such an extremity confronted science...quantum strangeness. But hold on a mo...I said MWI blasted complexity to the infinite limit. But that isn't true is it? MWI is Occam consistent, so the complexity malarkey is refuted good and proper. I will gladly stand corrected on that then. But you would agree, wouldn't you, that were it not for that Occam argument MWI would be placed in an untenlaable position? Glad you can agree about that. You should all really be able to agree about the hard-linking of MWI and quantumht strangeness. There's no reason why believing MW should obscure this fact. And.that Occam argument. What is that based on again, without which it wouldn't be viable. Yes that's right, it's quantum strangeness. None of the other stuff factors in much at all. - Hundredspossibly uncountably so...of largely unrealized, unexamined, assumptions are fundamental in MWI construction from Q I have pointed this out in the past. People typically try to rebut this basically the same way you try here, involving denying MWI is intrinsically linked to quantum strangeness in multiple, massive ways. I've listed some above. Each one of the examples above, demonstrate a way MWI would never have happened, or would be rendered untenable, where it not for some defence founded exclusively on quantum strangeness. At ther times I've shown how it is impossible to render MWI without implicitly making several assumptions about local realism, as to its objective truth AS WE PERCEIVE IT, it's priority in relation to other conceptions on scales of what is fundamental, and so on. It's just shocking - it used to be disturbing also - how none of you are willing to acknowledge the defining linkage of MWI and quantum strangeness. Despite massive evidence through multi[le dimensions from me. Despite obviousness. Despite complete failure to date of any one of you to refute any one of the of the hard linkages (I.e. MWI would not exist or would be thrown out without that link) that I've given. Despite the fact nothing new is ever said...the same arguments just get repeated. Despite all of them, I think, totally demolished and refuated by a quantum strangeness dependency. Like Bruno's repeat below of this argument QM is a direct consequence of these things and nothing else. Local realism is not part of QM assumption. It is a direct consequence of the linearity of the Schroedinger Equation, and the linearity of the tensor products. h Yeah? So you think that because some equations have a linearity character - which may be important, may be puzzling. But because of this, you say, thiis feature alone is
Re: Max and FPI
Probably my fault because I was in a hurry didn't reply under what I was answering, as I try to do normally. On 31 March 2014 21:06, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Ghibbsa, I answered to this in my reply to Liz. Usually I try to avoid this, but I confused the post. Sorry to Liz too. Best, Bruno -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
Bruno, Is not collapse restored for controlled experiments which are all first-person? I know of no 3p experiments. Richard On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 5:22 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Probably my fault because I was in a hurry didn't reply under what I was answering, as I try to do normally. On 31 March 2014 21:06, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Ghibbsa, I answered to this in my reply to Liz. Usually I try to avoid this, but I confused the post. Sorry to Liz too. Best, Bruno -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On Monday, March 31, 2014 8:30:35 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 Mar 2014, at 07:41, LizR wrote: I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption which explains how we come to measure discrete values. On 31 March 2014 16:27, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote: The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the fact other interpretations had similar flaws; as if the fact someone else is ill would make you less ill yourself. I think in the world of QM interpretations, with bugger all evidence to decide between them, the game is to even out the playing field in terms of flaws and then chase parsimony. Ofcourse, whether an infinite set of worlds is more or less parsimonious than just one + a few hidden variables, or one + a spooky wave function collapse, depends very much on what definition of parsimonious you find most fitting. MWI is refuted by the massive totally unexamined - some unrealized to this day - assumptions built in at the start. ? MWI seems to me to be the literal understanding of QM (without collapse). It is also a simple consequence of computationalism, except we get a multi-dreams and the question remains open if this defines a universe, a multiverse, or a multi-multiverses, etc. (results points toward a multiverse though). How can 'without collapse' in any sense be literal? Collapse is an empirically observed fact. That is what I thought. I thought for some time (many years ago) that computationalism was false, because i implies MW, in some testable way if we look below our substitution level, but when reading QM textbook, I was struck by the collapse, and I thought this was an empiric facts. But I didn't find serious paper showing this, and got the QM light when discovering Everett. From this I became rather persuaded that QM confirms the comp proliferation of realities, up to the existence of the arithmetical measure problem. Some experience with partial superposition (sometimes called schroedinger kitten) have been proposed a. s evidence for a collapse, but they are as much evidence of the MWI. An *apparent* collapse, can be as well considered as an apparent universe differentiation This isn't like the structure of my thought on the matter. Intense immersion is thfeature of yours, in what all appear to be your hallmark box of horrors :o) Yet the position of many years ago you relate, appears nearer full inversion of what you believe now than back. And that's a little bit fascinating because there may be a suggestion what you actually believe and what you corresponding immerse yourself in, and at what intensity, is decoupled, as least currently anyway. Or you kind of just made some of that up, which if so, might serve the purpose in your eyes of helping me to discover myself - the things you suspect I am tacitly assuming but don't know thato I am, Well there's a thought. And with allowances duly made for that, another explanation would be along the lines of... it really doesn't take a dogmatic empiricism for an overwhelming operational bias favouring what we observe as what happens over what we observe I as what does not happen. Try reeling everything back to the first days of QM, and adjust the picture a little so as to remove the element of quantum strangeness from the historical record completely. It never happened there was quantum strangeness. You obviously need to cook the books a little so that everything is just the same, as if quantum strangeness was real. Except in this world it's not. Real. OK, so in that imaginery world, run me by our impressions the first time we observe wave function collapse.. (ilremember, it only exists in this world, when it suits us so we can look at the ways MWI could still come about without strangeness . OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically observed fact actually not be. But would even that alone have been remotely near the ballpark of things taken seriously, had there not been extreme quantum strangeness irreconcilable at that time, with the most core, most fundamental accomplishments of science to date? MWI evacuates all weirdness from QM. It restores fully - determinacy - locality - physical realism That's the claim. But you don't seem to regard this as an important characteristic of MWI. I can what you mean Bruno. You are in a context of the minimum postulates, and then consequences, to derive a theory. Like MWI. That's fair enough. But that's a level of definition - an important one. That may
Re: Max and FPI
On 31 Mar 2014, at 12:44, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, March 31, 2014 8:30:35 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 Mar 2014, at 07:41, LizR wrote: I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption which explains how we come to measure discrete values. On 31 March 2014 16:27, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote: The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the fact other interpretations had similar flaws; as if the fact someone else is ill would make you less ill yourself. I think in the world of QM interpretations, with bugger all evidence to decide between them, the game is to even out the playing field in terms of flaws and then chase parsimony. Ofcourse, whether an infinite set of worlds is more or less parsimonious than just one + a few hidden variables, or one + a spooky wave function collapse, depends very much on what definition of parsimonious you find most fitting. MWI is refuted by the massive totally unexamined - some unrealized to this day - assumptions built in at the start. ? MWI seems to me to be the literal understanding of QM (without collapse). It is also a simple consequence of computationalism, except we get a multi-dreams and the question remains open if this defines a universe, a multiverse, or a multi-multiverses, etc. (results points toward a multiverse though). How can 'without collapse' in any sense be literal? Collapse is an empirically observed fact. That is what I thought. I thought for some time (many years ago) that computationalism was false, because i implies MW, in some testable way if we look below our substitution level, but when reading QM textbook, I was struck by the collapse, and I thought this was an empiric facts. But I didn't find serious paper showing this, and got the QM light when discovering Everett. From this I became rather persuaded that QM confirms the comp proliferation of realities, up to the existence of the arithmetical measure problem. Some experience with partial superposition (sometimes called schroedinger kitten) have been proposed a. s evidence for a collapse, but they are as much evidence of the MWI. An *apparent* collapse, can be as well considered as an apparent universe differentiation This isn't like the structure of my thought on the matter. Intense immersion is thfeature of yours, in what all appear to be your hallmark box of horrors :o) That looks funny, but might also interesting to elaborate. As a scientist, I completely separate *a priori* the search of truth and the search of pleasantness. In the case of computationalism I am agnostic on both level, and somehow my mind oscillates. I don't think we have really choice in the matter. Yet the position of many years ago you relate, appears nearer full inversion of what you believe now than back. What do you want? My parents were Aristotelians, like everybody, also atheists at that time. Animals are naturally Aristotelians. We learn quickly the distinction between dream and reality, and we reify instinctively and by default the material reality. The reversion in the human history has been a flash, repeated recurrently in the east and in the west, then partially rationalized by the greeks, but still abandoned by the rationalists. In my case, the reversion was a slow process, but the quest started early. Fear of death leading to a fascination for the amoebas and protozoans, which seems immortal. And that's a little bit fascinating because there may be a suggestion what you actually believe and what you corresponding immerse yourself in, and at what intensity, is decoupled, as least currently anyway. In the meantime I understood that in science we always doubt, and so we don't have beliefs (in the mundane sense), but only assumption or theories. Now, on some points, we might have very few doubts, like in elementary arithmetic, like x + 0 = x, but even there, an infinitesimal doubt remains and appears when you mix addition and multiplication (and bet on comp). Or you kind of just made some of that up, I would not do that, but I might try to explain myself to myself. I did got the many dreams in arithmetic before reading Everett. My interest in mechanism did grow from the reading of books in molecular biology, and I did study QM very superficially, and at that time. It was just an accompaniment for the needed biochemistry. To illustrate mechanism, it was important that the molecules were well defined entities, and not mysterious uncertainty clouds. So, like most, I will not doubt one instant about the
Re: Max and FPI
Richard, On 31 Mar 2014, at 11:33, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno, Is not collapse restored for controlled experiments which are all first-person? Yes, collapse is restored in the minds of each observer, but it is, as you say, a first person perspective, sharable as duplication is contagious, distributive, at the linear level, so to speak. I know of no 3p experiments. Me neither. That's a good reason to prefer to consider it as a first person perspective effect, which in this case, is predicted by the wave equation. Like comp predicts that the guy in W and in M feels to be in just one city. We don't feel the split. But there is a measure problem to solve, and its solution should be equivalent with the core physical laws. Well, that's what I am arguing for. Bruno Richard On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 5:22 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Probably my fault because I was in a hurry didn't reply under what I was answering, as I try to do normally. On 31 March 2014 21:06, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Ghibbsa, I answered to this in my reply to Liz. Usually I try to avoid this, but I confused the post. Sorry to Liz too. Best, Bruno -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically observed fact actually not be. But would even that alone have been remotely near the ballpark of things taken seriously, had there not been extreme quantum strangeness irreconcilable at that time, with the most core, most fundamental accomplishments of science to date? MWI evacuates all weirdness from QM. It restores fully - determinacy - locality - physical realism The price is not that big, as nature is used to multiplied things, like the water molecules in the ocean, the stars in the sky, the galaxies, etc. Each time, the humans are shocked by this, and Gordiano Bruno get burned for saying that stars are other suns, and that they might have planets, with other living being. It is humbling, but not coneptually new, especially for a computationalist, which explains the MW from simple arithmetic, where you need only to believe in the consequence of addition and multiplication of integers. The price is not having a unified 'self' - which many people would consider a big price since all observation and record keeping which is used to empirically test theories assumes this unity. If you observe X and you want to use that as empircal test of a theory it isn't helpful if your theory of the instruments says they also recorded not-X. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 31 Mar 2014, at 19:04, meekerdb wrote: On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically observed fact actually not be. But would even that alone have been remotely near the ballpark of things taken seriously, had there not been extreme quantum strangeness irreconcilable at that time, with the most core, most fundamental accomplishments of science to date? MWI evacuates all weirdness from QM. It restores fully - determinacy - locality - physical realism The price is not that big, as nature is used to multiplied things, like the water molecules in the ocean, the stars in the sky, the galaxies, etc. Each time, the humans are shocked by this, and Gordiano Bruno get burned for saying that stars are other suns, and that they might have planets, with other living being. It is humbling, but not coneptually new, especially for a computationalist, which explains the MW from simple arithmetic, where you need only to believe in the consequence of addition and multiplication of integers. The price is not having a unified 'self' - which many people would consider a big price since all observation and record keeping which is used to empirically test theories assumes this unity. Really? If you observe X and you want to use that as empircal test of a theory it isn't helpful if your theory of the instruments says they also recorded not-X. It is helpful when it is part of the only theories which are working, like QM, or arithmetic. We need only the unity of the first person self, from the first person self point of view, and that is guarantied by the comp hypothesis. Ah! Brent, this list is called everything because it is open to the idea that everything, or nothing, is simpler than any mono-thing. I can understand that it is counter-intuitive, but the brain has not been programmed for the big picture, so we can expect the possible truth to be shocking, it seems to me. And then comp, even QM, can be wrong, also. Bruno 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 3/31/2014 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 Mar 2014, at 19:04, meekerdb wrote: On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically observed fact actually not be. But would even that alone have been remotely near the ballpark of things taken seriously, had there not been extreme quantum strangeness irreconcilable at that time, with the most core, most fundamental accomplishments of science to date? MWI evacuates all weirdness from QM. It restores fully - determinacy - locality - physical realism The price is not that big, as nature is used to multiplied things, like the water molecules in the ocean, the stars in the sky, the galaxies, etc. Each time, the humans are shocked by this, and Gordiano Bruno get burned for saying that stars are other suns, and that they might have planets, with other living being. It is humbling, but not coneptually new, especially for a computationalist, which explains the MW from simple arithmetic, where you need only to believe in the consequence of addition and multiplication of integers. The price is not having a unified 'self' - which many people would consider a big price since all observation and record keeping which is used to empirically test theories assumes this unity. Really? If you observe X and you want to use that as empircal test of a theory it isn't helpful if your theory of the instruments says they also recorded not-X. It is helpful when it is part of the only theories which are working, like QM, or arithmetic. No it's not. It's reason the Born rule is needed and the source of the difficulty of interpreting probability in MWI and the 'white rabbit problem' in comp. We need only the unity of the first person self, from the first person self point of view, and that is guarantied by the comp hypothesis. Guarantee by definition doesn't mean much. Ah! Brent, this list is called everything because it is open to the idea that everything, or nothing, is simpler than any mono-thing. I know why it's called that, but I assumed that I didn't have to be true believer to participate. I can understand that it is counter-intuitive, but the brain has not been programmed for the big picture, so we can expect the possible truth to be shocking, it seems to me. Alas, there is a temptation regard how shocking a theory is as evidence for 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
So for meaningful dsicussion it looks like we need either a good explanation of the Born rule within the MWI (which I imagined had been provided by decoherence, but apparently this ain't necessarily so?) or a disproof of the MWI. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 3/31/2014 5:53 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 1 April 2014 04:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically observed fact actually not be. But would even that alone have been remotely near the ballpark of things taken seriously, had there not been extreme quantum strangeness irreconcilable at that time, with the most core, most fundamental accomplishments of science to date? MWI evacuates all weirdness from QM. It restores fully - determinacy - locality - physical realism The price is not that big, as nature is used to multiplied things, like the water molecules in the ocean, the stars in the sky, the galaxies, etc. Each time, the humans are shocked by this, and Gordiano Bruno get burned for saying that stars are other suns, and that they might have planets, with other living being. It is humbling, but not coneptually new, especially for a computationalist, which explains the MW from simple arithmetic, where you need only to believe in the consequence of addition and multiplication of integers. The price is not having a unified 'self' - which many people would consider a big price since all observation and record keeping which is used to empirically test theories assumes this unity. If you observe X and you want to use that as empircal test of a theory it isn't helpful if your theory of the instruments says they also recorded not-X. Are you saying that the fact that we don't see many worlds is evidence against many worlds? No, the fact that whatever our instrument reads our *theory* says there are infinitely many other readings. Brent -- 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 3/31/2014 6:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 1 April 2014 06:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: The price is not having a unified 'self' - which many people would consider a big price since all observation and record keeping which is used to empirically test theories assumes this unity. If you observe X and you want to use that as empircal test of a theory it isn't helpful if your theory of the instruments says they also recorded not-X. (I suspect some people would consider it a big price not to have a unified self for other reasons, too!) I can't see how it's worse for your theory to say that your instruments will record X and not X as opposed to saying they will record X or not X, but we don't know which. That's before the fact. I didn't write will. MWI is a theory that says when you read your instrument and it says X, it's only one of an infinite set some of which say X and some say not-X. The former explanation says there will be apparent but explicable randomness, the latter says there will be intrinsic and inexplicable randomness. But is it explicable. Bruno is careful to refer to uncertainty or indeterminancy. Those are not necessarily probabilities unless they can be quantified to satisfy Kolomogorov's axioms - and it's not clear to me that they can. The axioms require that the set of everything have measure 1. But in this case everything is ill defined and uncountably infinite. In common applications of QM one assumes isolation and considers only a small (at least finite) set of possible results - which works FAPP. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 1 April 2014 12:24, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/31/2014 5:53 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 1 April 2014 04:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically observed fact actually not be. But would even that alone have been remotely near the ballpark of things taken seriously, had there not been extreme quantum strangeness irreconcilable at that time, with the most core, most fundamental accomplishments of science to date? MWI evacuates all weirdness from QM. It restores fully - determinacy - locality - physical realism The price is not that big, as nature is used to multiplied things, like the water molecules in the ocean, the stars in the sky, the galaxies, etc. Each time, the humans are shocked by this, and Gordiano Bruno get burned for saying that stars are other suns, and that they might have planets, with other living being. It is humbling, but not coneptually new, especially for a computationalist, which explains the MW from simple arithmetic, where you need only to believe in the consequence of addition and multiplication of integers. The price is not having a unified 'self' - which many people would consider a big price since all observation and record keeping which is used to empirically test theories assumes this unity. If you observe X and you want to use that as empircal test of a theory it isn't helpful if your theory of the instruments says they also recorded not-X. Are you saying that the fact that we don't see many worlds is evidence against many worlds? No, the fact that whatever our instrument reads our *theory* says there are infinitely many other readings. Is that just a psychological problem or do you think it implies the theory is wrong? If the theory were right, what should we expect to see? -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 3/31/2014 6:41 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Are you saying that the fact that we don't see many worlds is evidence against many worlds? No, the fact that whatever our instrument reads our *theory* says there are infinitely many other readings. Is that just a psychological problem or do you think it implies the theory is wrong? If the theory were right, what should we expect to see? No, I think it implies the theory is incomplete. It needs to explain why our instrument readings seem to obey the laws of probability. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 1 April 2014 13:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/31/2014 6:41 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Are you saying that the fact that we don't see many worlds is evidence against many worlds? No, the fact that whatever our instrument reads our *theory* says there are infinitely many other readings. Is that just a psychological problem or do you think it implies the theory is wrong? If the theory were right, what should we expect to see? No, I think it implies the theory is incomplete. It needs to explain why our instrument readings seem to obey the laws of probability. Yes, it has been said many times that there is a problem with probability in an infinite universe but I assume this is not enough to conclude that an infinite universe is impossible a priori, so what *should* we observe in a such a universe? -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 1 April 2014 14:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/31/2014 6:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 1 April 2014 06:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: The price is not having a unified 'self' - which many people would consider a big price since all observation and record keeping which is used to empirically test theories assumes this unity. If you observe X and you want to use that as empircal test of a theory it isn't helpful if your theory of the instruments says they also recorded not-X. (I suspect some people would consider it a big price not to have a unified self for other reasons, too!) I can't see how it's worse for your theory to say that your instruments will record X and not X as opposed to saying they will record X or not X, but we don't know which. That's before the fact. I didn't write will. MWI is a theory that says when you read your instrument and it says X, it's only one of an infinite set some of which say X and some say not-X. OK, I suppose I should have used the same tense in my reply, although I can't see that it makes much difference. To recast what I said into the past tense, then, it seems no better to have a theory that says you got an unpredictable result for no reason than to have one that says you got one of a range of results, all of which were realised, for an explicable reason. The former explanation says there will be apparent but explicable randomness, the latter says there will be intrinsic and inexplicable randomness. But is it explicable. Bruno is careful to refer to uncertainty or indeterminancy. Those are not necessarily probabilities unless they can be quantified to satisfy Kolomogorov's axioms - and it's not clear to me that they can. The axioms require that the set of everything have measure 1. But in this case everything is ill defined and uncountably infinite. In common applications of QM one assumes isolation and considers only a small (at least finite) set of possible results - which works FAPP. I would say that it seems, at first glance, more explicable than invoking an intrinsic randomness in nature, which is explicitly specified as being inexplicable, at least in some interpretations (any which specify no hidden variables, I believe). To start with a deterministic equation and keep it deterministic, rather than adding some apparently ad hoc randomness, seems like a good thing, assuming it still gives results which match our observations. What you appear to be asking is whether the explanation works, which is another issue, of course. Maybe it doesn't, in which case we are back to there is no reason, just shut up and calculate - which is perhaps fair enough. I assume you are talking about the measure problem here. Why do you say the result is uncountably infinite, by the way, I was under the impression no one knows if it's countable or uncountable? If this has been determined, I'd be interested to know. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote: The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the fact other interpretations had similar flaws; as if the fact someone else is ill would make you less ill yourself. I think in the world of QM interpretations, with bugger all evidence to decide between them, the game is to even out the playing field in terms of flaws and then chase parsimony. Ofcourse, whether an infinite set of worlds is more or less parsimonious than just one + a few hidden variables, or one + a spooky wave function collapse, depends very much on what definition of parsimonious you find most fitting. MWI is refuted by the massive totally unexamined - some unrealized to this day - assumptions built in at the start. ? MWI seems to me to be the literal understanding of QM (without collapse). It is also a simple consequence of computationalism, except we get a multi-dreams and the question remains open if this defines a universe, a multiverse, or a multi-multiverses, etc. (results points toward a multiverse though). How can 'without collapse' in any sense be literal? Collapse is an empirically observed fact. OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically observed fact actually not be. But would even that alone have been remotely near the ballpark of things taken seriously, had there not been extreme quantum strangeness irreconcilable at that time, with the most core, most fundamental accomplishments of science to date? MWI is an extreme explanation that makes the universe infinity more complex and undiscoverable than it was before. An intolerably extreme theory unprecedented in all science, to be taken seriously, requires an even more intolerable crisis. And it just so happens at that very same point, such an extremity confronted science...quantum strangeness. But hold on a mo...I said MWI blasted complexity to the infinite limit. But that isn't true is it? MWI is Occam consistent, so the complexity malarkey is refuted good and proper. I will gladly stand corrected on that then. But you would agree, wouldn't you, that were it not for that Occam argument MWI would be placed in an untenlaable position? Glad you can agree about that. You should all really be able to agree about the hard-linking of MWI and quantumht strangeness. There's no reason why believing MW should obscure this fact. And.that Occam argument. What is that based on again, without which it wouldn't be viable. Yes that's right, it's quantum strangeness. None of the other stuff factors in much at all. - Hundredspossibly uncountably so...of largely unrealized, unexamined, assumptions are fundamental in MWI construction from Q I have pointed this out in the past. People typically try to rebut this basically the same way you try here, involving denying MWI is intrinsically linked to quantum strangeness in multiple, massive ways. I've listed some above. Each one of the examples above, demonstrate a way MWI would never have happened, or would be rendered untenable, where it not for some defence founded exclusively on quantum strangeness. At ther times I've shown how it is impossible to render MWI without implicitly making several assumptions about local realism, as to its objective truth AS WE PERCEIVE IT, it's priority in relation to other conceptions on scales of what is fundamental, and so on. It's just shocking - it used to be disturbing also - how none of you are willing to acknowledge the defining linkage of MWI and quantum strangeness. Despite massive evidence through multi[le dimensions from me. Despite obviousness. Despite complete failure to date of any one of you to refute any one of the of the hard linkages (I.e. MWI would not exist or would be thrown out without that link) that I've given. Despite the fact nothing new is ever said...the same arguments just get repeated. Despite all of them, I think, totally demolished and refuated by a quantum strangeness dependency. Like Bruno's repeat below of this argument QM is a direct consequence of these things and nothing else. Local realism is not part of QM assumption. It is a direct consequence of the linearity of the Schroedinger Equation, and the linearity of the tensor products. h Yeah? So you think that because some equations have a linearity character - which may be important, may be puzzling. But because of this, you say, thiis feature alone is enough to deny the reality of what is consistently the empirically observed collapse of the wave function. To such an extreme priority this denial of objective fact be true, science would be willing to
Re: Max and FPI
I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption which explains how we come to measure discrete values. On 31 March 2014 16:27, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote: The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the fact other interpretations had similar flaws; as if the fact someone else is ill would make you less ill yourself. I think in the world of QM interpretations, with bugger all evidence to decide between them, the game is to even out the playing field in terms of flaws and then chase parsimony. Ofcourse, whether an infinite set of worlds is more or less parsimonious than just one + a few hidden variables, or one + a spooky wave function collapse, depends very much on what definition of parsimonious you find most fitting. MWI is refuted by the massive totally unexamined - some unrealized to this day - assumptions built in at the start. ? MWI seems to me to be the literal understanding of QM (without collapse). It is also a simple consequence of computationalism, except we get a multi-dreams and the question remains open if this defines a universe, a multiverse, or a multi-multiverses, etc. (results points toward a multiverse though). How can 'without collapse' in any sense be literal? Collapse is an empirically observed fact. OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically observed fact actually not be. But would even that alone have been remotely near the ballpark of things taken seriously, had there not been extreme quantum strangeness irreconcilable at that time, with the most core, most fundamental accomplishments of science to date? MWI is an extreme explanation that makes the universe infinity more complex and undiscoverable than it was before. An intolerably extreme theory unprecedented in all science, to be taken seriously, requires an even more intolerable crisis. And it just so happens at that very same point, such an extremity confronted science...quantum strangeness. But hold on a mo...I said MWI blasted complexity to the infinite limit. But that isn't true is it? MWI is Occam consistent, so the complexity malarkey is refuted good and proper. I will gladly stand corrected on that then. But you would agree, wouldn't you, that were it not for that Occam argument MWI would be placed in an untenlaable position? Glad you can agree about that. You should all really be able to agree about the hard-linking of MWI and quantumht strangeness. There's no reason why believing MW should obscure this fact. And.that Occam argument. What is that based on again, without which it wouldn't be viable. Yes that's right, it's quantum strangeness. None of the other stuff factors in much at all. - Hundredspossibly uncountably so...of largely unrealized, unexamined, assumptions are fundamental in MWI construction from Q I have pointed this out in the past. People typically try to rebut this basically the same way you try here, involving denying MWI is intrinsically linked to quantum strangeness in multiple, massive ways. I've listed some above. Each one of the examples above, demonstrate a way MWI would never have happened, or would be rendered untenable, where it not for some defence founded exclusively on quantum strangeness. At ther times I've shown how it is impossible to render MWI without implicitly making several assumptions about local realism, as to its objective truth AS WE PERCEIVE IT, it's priority in relation to other conceptions on scales of what is fundamental, and so on. It's just shocking - it used to be disturbing also - how none of you are willing to acknowledge the defining linkage of MWI and quantum strangeness. Despite massive evidence through multi[le dimensions from me. Despite obviousness. Despite complete failure to date of any one of you to refute any one of the of the hard linkages (I.e. MWI would not exist or would be thrown out without that link) that I've given. Despite the fact nothing new is ever said...the same arguments just get repeated. Despite all of them, I think, totally demolished and refuated by a quantum strangeness dependency. Like Bruno's repeat below of this argument QM is a direct consequence of these things and nothing else. Local realism is not part of QM assumption. It is a direct consequence of the linearity of the Schroedinger Equation, and the linearity of the tensor products. h Yeah? So you think that because some equations have a linearity character - which may be important, may be puzzling. But because of this, you say, thiis feature alone is enough to deny the reality of what is consistently the empirically
Re: Max and FPI
On 27 Mar 2014, at 17:50, meekerdb wrote: On 3/26/2014 11:38 PM, LizR wrote: OK, I suppose the argument makes sense, sort of (although it seems more likely to me that genes would act as though there is one universe whether that's the case or not, for reasons I already mentioned). Anyway let's assume it does, at least for the sake of argument, and see if it's coherent, if you'll pardon a quantum pun. Interesting that in quantum mechanics coherent mean interferes with itself but in logic it means doesn't contradict itself. Well, the official term is consistent. Actually coherent is used in linear logic, and some quantum logic, and also in topology, with a meaning which somehow generalizes interfere with itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherent_space http://llwiki.ens-lyon.fr/mediawiki/index.php/Coherent_semantics Bruno So the idea is that in a multiverse we - indeed all animals (and plants, etc) should plump for a reproductive strategy that is somehow equivalent to the three descendants on a quantum coin toss one. I'd say it's coherent, but inapplicable because a universe where a species with strategy B occasionally gets wiped out, but those with strategy A don't is a very unlikely universe. But if universes were like that, so getting wiped out was correlated with reproductive strategy, then it's an interesting question whether 'natural selection' under MWI is different than for a single universe. I guess my next question is, what could such a reproductive strategy possibly look like in real life, given that most animals have no access to quantum coin tossing? I suppose you could look at the exigencies of life and mutation and reproduction as providing the quantum coin tosses. But I don't think it's realistic because getting wiped out as a species is more a question of ecological niche and sheer numbers than reproductive strategy. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 27 Mar 2014, at 21:49, Richard Ruquist wrote: Brent, If as you say in the multiverse everything happens and infinitely many times then there can be only one multiverse, I think I agree, Richard, but you should perhaps added precisions: like saying everything *consistent* (in some theory) happens, infinitely many times. Computationalism entails that every relative computational states is realized in infinitely many universal number relations, and the physical realities are first person plural sort of projections. which negates a number of cosmology theories like Linde's Chaotic Inflation Cosmology. But then the potential he used provides the best fit to BICEP2 gravitational-wave data. Perhaps it is the multiverse that is falsified? That would falsify computationalism, but who knows. Bruno Richard On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 1:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/27/2014 12:51 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-03-27 5:39 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: On 3/26/2014 9:03 PM, LizR wrote: On 27 March 2014 16:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I don't think you can infer anything about gender preference for triple or bust vs maintain what we've got from evolutionary biology. Well OK, but what I've read (and indeed observed and experienced throughout my life) indicates that people, and most animals who care for their young, employ strategies which could (roughly) be described as male-risky, female-play-it-safe (or at least safer). E.g. it's the male grasshoppers who keep me awake with their racket, the male birds who wake me in the morning with THEIR racket, peacocks with the big showy tails, male bower birds who expend the energy to make the bowers - all males employing (relatively) risky strategies to attract females. (Because, you see, we're just naturally fabulous and you guys have to make the running. Sorry!) Kent's idea would be to look around and see whether people were overwhelmingly type A or type B. If MWI is true they should be type B, if false type A. Yes, I realise what he was saying. I don't think it makes much sense, because it would require people to believe in the existence of a multiverse before they could formulate a reproductive strategy involving that knowledge, and the idea of a multiverse has only existed for about 50 years. Not believe in, just believe MWI is possibly true. But they wouldn't actually have to have any opinion; that's just a way to explain it. Presumably evolution would have already made the choice and we'd all be overwhelmingly either A type or B type, whether we knew it or not. The problem would be finding out which we are if it's just in our genes and not necessarily consciously available. I'd say more of problem for the test is that the aren't really two choices which are passed on genetically. There's really nothing to limit one to just replacement even if there's only one universe. Otherwise, I'd expect people to act as though they are in a single universe, regardless of whether that is so, because that's how things appear to be. I'd expect genes to exhibit a similar strategy - they aren't (can't be) interested in what happens in a parallel world which can't communicate with the one they're in. There shouldn't be any split along gender line. Well there is, at least in my experience (and in various books, articles, nature documentaries and so on that I've come across). Indeed, apart from a few die-hard feminists I don't know of anyone who still adheres to the notion that people are blank slates and that gender roles are purely assigned by culture (humans exhibit sexual dimorphism, and brain scans indicate that it doesn't magically stop at our necks. Plus, why would blank-slatism only be true of us, but not the rest of the animal/fish/insect kingdom where it - often blatantly - isn't the case?) Anyway, that's why I don't think one can sensibly analyse an entire species' reproductive strategy to see if it was A or B (or something else), because reproductive strategies tend to be gender specific. It seems like a daft idea - maybe it's a guy thing? ;-) I don't understand your reasoning. Sure guys are less risk averse. But A vs B is pure win-or-lose depending on whether MWI is true or not. If MWI is true then strategy B is the winner no matter whether you're male or female...and not by a little bit or just probabilistically, but exponentially, overwhelmingly better. If MWI is false and there's just one universe then B is an absolute, zero survivors loser. The thing is even if MWI is true or not... strategy A or B are simply idea with no referent in the reality (even as possibility)... the 0.5 probability of going extinct at the next gen simply refer to nothing real in our reality, same thing for the steady reproduction... so I can't see
Re: Max and FPI
2014-03-27 5:39 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: On 3/26/2014 9:03 PM, LizR wrote: On 27 March 2014 16:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I don't think you can infer anything about gender preference for triple or bust vs maintain what we've got from evolutionary biology. Well OK, but what I've read (and indeed observed and experienced throughout my life) indicates that people, and most animals who care for their young, employ strategies which could (roughly) be described as male-risky, female-play-it-safe (or at least safer). E.g. it's the male grasshoppers who keep me awake with their racket, the male birds who wake me in the morning with THEIR racket, peacocks with the big showy tails, male bower birds who expend the energy to make the bowers - all males employing (relatively) risky strategies to attract females. (Because, you see, we're just naturally fabulous and you guys have to make the running. Sorry!) Kent's idea would be to look around and see whether people were overwhelmingly type A or type B. If MWI is true they should be type B, if false type A. Yes, I realise what he was saying. I don't think it makes much sense, because it would require people to believe in the existence of a multiverse before they could formulate a reproductive strategy involving that knowledge, and the idea of a multiverse has only existed for about 50 years. Not believe in, just believe MWI is possibly true. But they wouldn't actually have to have any opinion; that's just a way to explain it. Presumably evolution would have already made the choice and we'd all be overwhelmingly either A type or B type, whether we knew it or not. The problem would be finding out which we are if it's just in our genes and not necessarily consciously available. I'd say more of problem for the test is that the aren't really two choices which are passed on genetically. There's really nothing to limit one to just replacement even if there's only one universe. Otherwise, I'd expect people to act as though they are in a single universe, regardless of whether that is so, because that's how things appear to be. I'd expect genes to exhibit a similar strategy - they aren't (can't be) interested in what happens in a parallel world which can't communicate with the one they're in. There shouldn't be any split along gender line. Well there is, at least in my experience (and in various books, articles, nature documentaries and so on that I've come across). Indeed, apart from a few die-hard feminists I don't know of anyone who still adheres to the notion that people are blank slates and that gender roles are purely assigned by culture (humans exhibit sexual dimorphism, and brain scans indicate that it doesn't magically stop at our necks. Plus, why would blank-slatism only be true of us, but not the rest of the animal/fish/insect kingdom where it - often blatantly - isn't the case?) Anyway, that's why I don't think one can sensibly analyse an entire species' reproductive strategy to see if it was A or B (or something else), because reproductive strategies tend to be gender specific. It seems like a daft idea - maybe it's a guy thing? ;-) I don't understand your reasoning. Sure guys are less risk averse. But A vs B is pure win-or-lose depending on whether MWI is true or not. If MWI is true then strategy B is the winner no matter whether you're male or female...and not by a little bit or just probabilistically, but exponentially, overwhelmingly better. If MWI is false and there's just one universe then B is an absolute, zero survivors loser. The thing is even if MWI is true or not... strategy A or B are simply idea with no referent in the reality (even as possibility)... the 0.5 probability of going extinct at the next gen simply refer to nothing real in our reality, same thing for the steady reproduction... so I can't see how an idea pulled from a hat could possibly test anything... Quentin 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 3/26/2014 11:38 PM, LizR wrote: OK, I suppose the argument makes sense, sort of (although it seems more likely to me that genes would act as though there is one universe whether that's the case or not, for reasons I already mentioned). Anyway let's assume it does, at least for the sake of argument, and see if it's coherent, if you'll pardon a quantum pun. Interesting that in quantum mechanics coherent mean interferes with itself but in logic it means doesn't contradict itself. So the idea is that in a multiverse we - indeed all animals (and plants, etc) should plump for a reproductive strategy that is somehow equivalent to the three descendants on a quantum coin toss one. I'd say it's coherent, but inapplicable because a universe where a species with strategy B occasionally gets wiped out, but those with strategy A don't is a very unlikely universe. But if universes were like that, so getting wiped out was correlated with reproductive strategy, then it's an interesting question whether 'natural selection' under MWI is different than for a single universe. I guess my next question is, what could such a reproductive strategy possibly look like in real life, given that most animals have no access to quantum coin tossing? I suppose you could look at the exigencies of life and mutation and reproduction as providing the quantum coin tosses. But I don't think it's realistic because getting wiped out as a species is more a question of ecological niche and sheer numbers than reproductive strategy. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 3/27/2014 12:51 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-03-27 5:39 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net: On 3/26/2014 9:03 PM, LizR wrote: On 27 March 2014 16:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I don't think you can infer anything about gender preference for triple or bust vs maintain what we've got from evolutionary biology. Well OK, but what I've read (and indeed observed and experienced throughout my life) indicates that people, and most animals who care for their young, employ strategies which could (roughly) be described as male-risky, female-play-it-safe (or at least safer). E.g. it's the male grasshoppers who keep me awake with their racket, the male birds who wake me in the morning with THEIR racket, peacocks with the big showy tails, male bower birds who expend the energy to make the bowers - all males employing (relatively) risky strategies to attract females. (Because, you see, we're just naturally fabulous and you guys have to make the running. Sorry!) Kent's idea would be to look around and see whether people were overwhelmingly type A or type B. If MWI is true they should be type B, if false type A. Yes, I realise what he was saying. I don't think it makes much sense, because it would require people to believe in the existence of a multiverse before they could formulate a reproductive strategy involving that knowledge, and the idea of a multiverse has only existed for about 50 years. Not believe in, just believe MWI is possibly true. But they wouldn't actually have to have any opinion; that's just a way to explain it. Presumably evolution would have already made the choice and we'd all be overwhelmingly either A type or B type, whether we knew it or not. The problem would be finding out which we are if it's just in our genes and not necessarily consciously available. I'd say more of problem for the test is that the aren't really two choices which are passed on genetically. There's really nothing to limit one to just replacement even if there's only one universe. Otherwise, I'd expect people to act as though they are in a single universe, regardless of whether that is so, because that's how things appear to be. I'd expect genes to exhibit a similar strategy - they aren't (can't be) interested in what happens in a parallel world which can't communicate with the one they're in. There shouldn't be any split along gender line. Well there is, at least in my experience (and in various books, articles, nature documentaries and so on that I've come across). Indeed, apart from a few die-hard feminists I don't know of anyone who still adheres to the notion that people are blank slates and that gender roles are purely assigned by culture (humans exhibit sexual dimorphism, and brain scans indicate that it doesn't magically stop at our necks. Plus, why would blank-slatism only be true of us, but not the rest of the animal/fish/insect kingdom where it - often blatantly - isn't the case?) Anyway, that's why I don't think one can sensibly analyse an entire species' reproductive strategy to see if it was A or B (or something else), because reproductive strategies tend to be gender specific. It seems like a daft idea - maybe it's a guy thing? ;-) I don't understand your reasoning. Sure guys are less risk averse. But A vs B is pure win-or-lose depending on whether MWI is true or not. If MWI is true then strategy B is the winner no matter whether you're male or female...and not by a little bit or just probabilistically, but exponentially, overwhelmingly better. If MWI is false and there's just one universe then B is an absolute, zero survivors loser. The thing is even if MWI is true or not... strategy A or B are simply idea with no referent in the reality (even as possibility)... the 0.5 probability of going extinct at the next gen simply refer to nothing real in our reality, same thing for the steady reproduction... so I can't see how an idea pulled from a hat could possibly test anything... I agree. I just thought it was an interesting idea that 'natural selection' might act differently in multiverse than a universe. The example made up by Kent seems highly unrealistic - but then people keep saying that in the multiverse everything happens and infinitely many times. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit
Re: Max and FPI
Brent, If as you say in the multiverse everything happens and infinitely many times then there can be only one multiverse, which negates a number of cosmology theories like Linde's Chaotic Inflation Cosmology. But then the potential he used provides the best fit to BICEP2 gravitational-wave data. Perhaps it is the multiverse that is falsified? Richard On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 1:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/27/2014 12:51 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-03-27 5:39 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: On 3/26/2014 9:03 PM, LizR wrote: On 27 March 2014 16:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I don't think you can infer anything about gender preference for triple or bust vs maintain what we've got from evolutionary biology. Well OK, but what I've read (and indeed observed and experienced throughout my life) indicates that people, and most animals who care for their young, employ strategies which could (roughly) be described as male-risky, female-play-it-safe (or at least safer). E.g. it's the male grasshoppers who keep me awake with their racket, the male birds who wake me in the morning with THEIR racket, peacocks with the big showy tails, male bower birds who expend the energy to make the bowers - all males employing (relatively) risky strategies to attract females. (Because, you see, we're just naturally fabulous and you guys have to make the running. Sorry!) Kent's idea would be to look around and see whether people were overwhelmingly type A or type B. If MWI is true they should be type B, if false type A. Yes, I realise what he was saying. I don't think it makes much sense, because it would require people to believe in the existence of a multiverse before they could formulate a reproductive strategy involving that knowledge, and the idea of a multiverse has only existed for about 50 years. Not believe in, just believe MWI is possibly true. But they wouldn't actually have to have any opinion; that's just a way to explain it. Presumably evolution would have already made the choice and we'd all be overwhelmingly either A type or B type, whether we knew it or not. The problem would be finding out which we are if it's just in our genes and not necessarily consciously available. I'd say more of problem for the test is that the aren't really two choices which are passed on genetically. There's really nothing to limit one to just replacement even if there's only one universe. Otherwise, I'd expect people to act as though they are in a single universe, regardless of whether that is so, because that's how things appear to be. I'd expect genes to exhibit a similar strategy - they aren't (can't be) interested in what happens in a parallel world which can't communicate with the one they're in. There shouldn't be any split along gender line. Well there is, at least in my experience (and in various books, articles, nature documentaries and so on that I've come across). Indeed, apart from a few die-hard feminists I don't know of anyone who still adheres to the notion that people are blank slates and that gender roles are purely assigned by culture (humans exhibit sexual dimorphism, and brain scans indicate that it doesn't magically stop at our necks. Plus, why would blank-slatism only be true of us, but not the rest of the animal/fish/insect kingdom where it - often blatantly - isn't the case?) Anyway, that's why I don't think one can sensibly analyse an entire species' reproductive strategy to see if it was A or B (or something else), because reproductive strategies tend to be gender specific. It seems like a daft idea - maybe it's a guy thing? ;-) I don't understand your reasoning. Sure guys are less risk averse. But A vs B is pure win-or-lose depending on whether MWI is true or not. If MWI is true then strategy B is the winner no matter whether you're male or female...and not by a little bit or just probabilistically, but exponentially, overwhelmingly better. If MWI is false and there's just one universe then B is an absolute, zero survivors loser. The thing is even if MWI is true or not... strategy A or B are simply idea with no referent in the reality (even as possibility)... the 0.5 probability of going extinct at the next gen simply refer to nothing real in our reality, same thing for the steady reproduction... so I can't see how an idea pulled from a hat could possibly test anything... I agree. I just thought it was an interesting idea that 'natural selection' might act differently in multiverse than a universe. The example made up by Kent seems highly unrealistic - but then people keep saying that in the multiverse everything happens and infinitely many times. 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
Re: Max and FPI
On 28 March 2014 07:49, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Brent, If as you say in the multiverse everything happens and infinitely many times then there can be only one multiverse, which negates a number of cosmology theories like Linde's Chaotic Inflation Cosmology. But then the potential he used provides the best fit to BICEP2 gravitational-wave data. Perhaps it is the multiverse that is falsified? 2 x multiverse = multiverse -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 28 March 2014 06:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I agree. I just thought it was an interesting idea that 'natural selection' might act differently in multiverse than a universe. The example made up by Kent seems highly unrealistic - Yes it does. It might be interesting if someone can come up with something realistic that would work differently in a multiverse (David Deutsch suggests a quantum computer would be such a thing, although I imagine if we managed to create any sufficiently large superposition, that would start to make a single world look a bit shaky, in that whatever the selection / collapse / projection operation is, it would have to act at scales approaching the macroscopic. But as far as I know nothing large has been placed in a superposition as yet, no two slit experiment with VWs...) Of course if it turns out that it's impossible to create a QC, or impossible to place objects larger than a certain size (or mass, or density...) in a superposition, that would be strong evidence for collapse (and we'd be looking for a Penrose style mechanism, I think). So actually that IS something that should differentiate uni- and multi-verse theories - a measurable boundary at which things reliably become classical. but then people keep saying that in the multiverse everything happens and infinitely many times. Who are these people? I thought that in the multiverse everything that could be described by the evolution of the wavefunction happens, either once or along a continuum depending on the answer to the open question of whether space-time is quantised? -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 28 March 2014 09:49, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Brent, If as you say in the multiverse everything happens and infinitely many times then there can be only one multiverse, which negates a number of cosmology theories like Linde's Chaotic Inflation Cosmology. It does? How? -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
Different potentials. Infinite multiverse has a flat potential. Linde's Chaotic Inflation Cosmology has a parabolic potential in each separate universe. Such a potential fits the BICEP2 data best On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 7:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 March 2014 09:49, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Brent, If as you say in the multiverse everything happens and infinitely many times then there can be only one multiverse, which negates a number of cosmology theories like Linde's Chaotic Inflation Cosmology. It does? How? -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
I've read Mr Kent's paper, or most of it (I'm afraid with limited time I skipped a few bits that seemed incoherent to my fuzzy brain at least) and I have to admit it didn't appear to say anything for or against the MWI except that (a) he obviously doesn't like it, and (b) some people have apparently misunderstood some of its implications (or perhaps (c) *nobody*understands its implications, which would put it in the same position quantum theory was in for at least its first 50 years, though without the experimental successes to bolster belief that it's correct). His proposed test doesn't strike me as terribly useful, if only because he seems to have roughly approximated the reproductive strategies of (most) male and female animals that care for their young - the males tend to follow the tripe or bust strategy, the females the slow and steady one, for reasons that I believe are obvious to any evolutionary biologist. Does this mean that males live in a multiverse and females a universe? :-) Maybe that explains the alleged monofocus of typical male humans vs the alleged broader focus of females... (Or that could be explained by the requirements of hunting vs those of looking after children.) So I'm not sure where this leaves any proponents or opponents of the MWI. On 24 March 2014 19:57, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/23/2014 11:27 PM, LizR wrote: On 24 March 2014 17:48, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? Er, no, lots of people got the wrong end of the stick and argued about it at length. I was one of the ones who said he probably meant ... whatever it turned out he meant. (Maybe I just don't have enough maths background to get the wrong end of the stick on this sort of thing.) I wonder if people on the list are aware of Adrian Kent's proposed test of MWI. Before you look at his paper on the link below, answer this question: By courtesy of genetic engineering and an oppressive Orwellian government, you must choose a reproductive strategy for yourself and all your descendants. You will become a member of either humans-a or humans-b. Each generation, say 70yrs, all humans-a die and leave one progeny, so the human-a population stays constant. But each generation the human-b population will, in accordance with a 0.5 probability quantum event, either go extinct, none have progeny, or they triple, each one dies leaving three progeny. Then the question is, which new subspecies do you want to join, human-a or human-b? Kent's paper is arXiv:0905.0624v2. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 3/26/2014 7:05 PM, LizR wrote: I've read Mr Kent's paper, or most of it (I'm afraid with limited time I skipped a few bits that seemed incoherent to my fuzzy brain at least) and I have to admit it didn't appear to say anything for or against the MWI except that (a) he obviously doesn't like it, and (b) some people have apparently misunderstood some of its implications (or perhaps (c) /nobody/ understands its implications, which would put it in the same position quantum theory was in for at least its first 50 years, though without the experimental successes to bolster belief that it's correct). His proposed test doesn't strike me as terribly useful, if only because he seems to have roughly approximated the reproductive strategies of (most) male and female animals that care for their young - the males tend to follow the tripe or bust strategy, the females the slow and steady one, for reasons that I believe are obvious to any evolutionary biologist. It's not obvious to me. Did you take a poll to support your guess? 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 27 March 2014 15:36, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/26/2014 7:05 PM, LizR wrote: I've read Mr Kent's paper, or most of it (I'm afraid with limited time I skipped a few bits that seemed incoherent to my fuzzy brain at least) and I have to admit it didn't appear to say anything for or against the MWI except that (a) he obviously doesn't like it, and (b) some people have apparently misunderstood some of its implications (or perhaps (c) *nobody*understands its implications, which would put it in the same position quantum theory was in for at least its first 50 years, though without the experimental successes to bolster belief that it's correct). His proposed test doesn't strike me as terribly useful, if only because he seems to have roughly approximated the reproductive strategies of (most) male and female animals that care for their young - the males tend to follow the tripe or bust strategy, the females the slow and steady one, for reasons that I believe are obvious to any evolutionary biologist. It's not obvious to me. Did you take a poll to support your guess? No, I just read a lot of books on evolutionary biology. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 3/26/2014 8:14 PM, LizR wrote: On 27 March 2014 15:36, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/26/2014 7:05 PM, LizR wrote: I've read Mr Kent's paper, or most of it (I'm afraid with limited time I skipped a few bits that seemed incoherent to my fuzzy brain at least) and I have to admit it didn't appear to say anything for or against the MWI except that (a) he obviously doesn't like it, and (b) some people have apparently misunderstood some of its implications (or perhaps (c) /nobody/ understands its implications, which would put it in the same position quantum theory was in for at least its first 50 years, though without the experimental successes to bolster belief that it's correct). His proposed test doesn't strike me as terribly useful, if only because he seems to have roughly approximated the reproductive strategies of (most) male and female animals that care for their young - the males tend to follow the tripe or bust strategy, the females the slow and steady one, for reasons that I believe are obvious to any evolutionary biologist. It's not obvious to me. Did you take a poll to support your guess? No, I just read a lot of books on evolutionary biology. I don't think you can infer anything about gender preference for triple or bust vs maintain what we've got from evolutionary biology. Kent's idea would be to look around and see whether people were overwhelmingly type A or type B. If MWI is true they should be type B, if false type A. There shouldn't be any split along gender line. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 27 March 2014 16:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I don't think you can infer anything about gender preference for triple or bust vs maintain what we've got from evolutionary biology. Well OK, but what I've read (and indeed observed and experienced throughout my life) indicates that people, and most animals who care for their young, employ strategies which could (roughly) be described as male-risky, female-play-it-safe (or at least safer). E.g. it's the male grasshoppers who keep me awake with their racket, the male birds who wake me in the morning with THEIR racket, peacocks with the big showy tails, male bower birds who expend the energy to make the bowers - all males employing (relatively) risky strategies to attract females. (Because, you see, we're just naturally fabulous and you guys have to make the running. Sorry!) Kent's idea would be to look around and see whether people were overwhelmingly type A or type B. If MWI is true they should be type B, if false type A. Yes, I realise what he was saying. I don't think it makes much sense, because it would require people to believe in the existence of a multiverse before they could formulate a reproductive strategy involving that knowledge, and the idea of a multiverse has only existed for about 50 years. Otherwise, I'd expect people to act as though they are in a single universe, regardless of whether that is so, because that's how things appear to be. I'd expect genes to exhibit a similar strategy - they aren't (can't be) interested in what happens in a parallel world which can't communicate with the one they're in. There shouldn't be any split along gender line. Well there is, at least in my experience (and in various books, articles, nature documentaries and so on that I've come across). Indeed, apart from a few die-hard feminists I don't know of anyone who still adheres to the notion that people are blank slates and that gender roles are purely assigned by culture (humans exhibit sexual dimorphism, and brain scans indicate that it doesn't magically stop at our necks. Plus, why would blank-slatism only be true of us, but not the rest of the animal/fish/insect kingdom where it - often blatantly - isn't the case?) Anyway, that's why I don't think one can sensibly analyse an entire species' reproductive strategy to see if it was A or B (or something else), because reproductive strategies tend to be gender specific. It seems like a daft idea - maybe it's a guy thing? ;-) -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 3/26/2014 9:03 PM, LizR wrote: On 27 March 2014 16:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I don't think you can infer anything about gender preference for triple or bust vs maintain what we've got from evolutionary biology. Well OK, but what I've read (and indeed observed and experienced throughout my life) indicates that people, and most animals who care for their young, employ strategies which could (roughly) be described as male-risky, female-play-it-safe (or at least safer). E.g. it's the male grasshoppers who keep me awake with their racket, the male birds who wake me in the morning with THEIR racket, peacocks with the big showy tails, male bower birds who expend the energy to make the bowers - all males employing (relatively) risky strategies to attract females. (Because, you see, we're just naturally fabulous and you guys have to make the running. Sorry!) Kent's idea would be to look around and see whether people were overwhelmingly type A or type B. If MWI is true they should be type B, if false type A. Yes, I realise what he was saying. I don't think it makes much sense, because it would require people to believe in the existence of a multiverse before they could formulate a reproductive strategy involving that knowledge, and the idea of a multiverse has only existed for about 50 years. Not believe in, just believe MWI is possibly true. But they wouldn't actually have to have any opinion; that's just a way to explain it. Presumably evolution would have already made the choice and we'd all be overwhelmingly either A type or B type, whether we knew it or not. The problem would be finding out which we are if it's just in our genes and not necessarily consciously available. I'd say more of problem for the test is that the aren't really two choices which are passed on genetically. There's really nothing to limit one to just replacement even if there's only one universe. Otherwise, I'd expect people to act as though they are in a single universe, regardless of whether that is so, because that's how things appear to be. I'd expect genes to exhibit a similar strategy - they aren't (can't be) interested in what happens in a parallel world which can't communicate with the one they're in. There shouldn't be any split along gender line. Well there is, at least in my experience (and in various books, articles, nature documentaries and so on that I've come across). Indeed, apart from a few die-hard feminists I don't know of anyone who still adheres to the notion that people are blank slates and that gender roles are purely assigned by culture (humans exhibit sexual dimorphism, and brain scans indicate that it doesn't magically stop at our necks. Plus, why would blank-slatism only be true of us, but not the rest of the animal/fish/insect kingdom where it - often blatantly - isn't the case?) Anyway, that's why I don't think one can sensibly analyse an entire species' reproductive strategy to see if it was A or B (or something else), because reproductive strategies tend to be gender specific. It seems like a daft idea - maybe it's a guy thing? ;-) I don't understand your reasoning. Sure guys are less risk averse. But A vs B is pure win-or-lose depending on whether MWI is true or not. If MWI is true then strategy B is the winner no matter whether you're male or female...and not by a little bit or just probabilistically, but exponentially, overwhelmingly better. If MWI is false and there's just one universe then B is an absolute, zero survivors loser. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 4:48:20 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote: The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the fact other interpretations had similar flaws; as if the fact someone else is ill would make you less ill yourself. I think in the world of QM interpretations, with bugger all evidence to decide between them, the game is to even out the playing field in terms of flaws and then chase parsimony. Ofcourse, whether an infinite set of worlds is more or less parsimonious than just one + a few hidden variables, or one + a spooky wave function collapse, depends very much on what definition of parsimonious you find most fitting. MWI is refuted by the massive totally unexamined - some unrealized to this day - assumptions built in at the start. It's like, local realism - a reasonable assumed universal. But only the bare bones. Assuming locarealism means locality as we perceive, and classically seems to be. In; these dimensions. But what happens when science transforms through a major generalization? The hallmark is that not only theories get merged, broken up, such that everything looks different. But that the revolution stretchs right out to the conceptual framework itself...the basic concepts that are upfront necessary to be shared, for basic communication to take place. It's all concepts broken apart, while others merged together. We can put some faith in local realism, but in what dimensionality it's pure, we don't about that yet..we don't know.MWI assumes that it's a safe scientific known. It isn't. In fact everything is against that. There literally dozens of others. Like assuming major properties are duplicated as is between higher and lower macrostate layers. MWI'ers need to assume local realism at quantum levels as is. Unprecedented if true. Daft in other words. When I throw this at them, the response if there is one is usually6 denial that MWI needs those massive assumptions and would not have happened without them. Arguments come the lines of MWI is derived clean from the wave function or by some other theoretical strtucture, involving simple assumptions only none of them things like local realism. They just don't get it, science, anymore. theories as internal theory structure get improved all the time as part of an ongoing progression. Building out an assumption is not a matter of improving theory structure alone. MWI is tied to assuming local realism for all time, because it was only the extreme and disturbing - incomprehensible even to the greats - character of quantum strangenessl. MWI is tied to it, because that is what it took hat an outrageous, unscientific notion like MWI could be taken seriously at all. MWI even now, has not defense for itself, without reference to quantum strangeness,, and restorations to classical determinism. It's a quantum theory, and it's wrong, because it's assumptions are that the nature of reality is hard tied forever to principles, hard tied to the complexities of this dimension, this universe right here. What a joke. The harm done by this theory is immeasurable. A theory sterile for all time, placed all around the boundaries beyond the frontiers of science, that can never be discoverex, never be passed through, never be built over, or under. It's an act of murder of the human and scientific dreams present company excepted of course :0 -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote: The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the fact other interpretations had similar flaws; as if the fact someone else is ill would make you less ill yourself. I think in the world of QM interpretations, with bugger all evidence to decide between them, the game is to even out the playing field in terms of flaws and then chase parsimony. Ofcourse, whether an infinite set of worlds is more or less parsimonious than just one + a few hidden variables, or one + a spooky wave function collapse, depends very much on what definition of parsimonious you find most fitting. MWI is refuted by the massive totally unexamined - some unrealized to this day - assumptions built in at the start. ? MWI seems to me to be the literal understanding of QM (without collapse). It is also a simple consequence of computationalism, except we get a multi-dreams and the question remains open if this defines a universe, a multiverse, or a multi-multiverses, etc. (results points toward a multiverse though). It's like, local realism - a reasonable assumed universal. Local realism is not part of QM assumption. It is a direct consequence of the linearity of the Schroedinger Equation, and the linearity of the tensor products. But only the bare bones. Assuming locarealism means locality as we perceive, As we infer from what we perceive. We cannot *perceive locality by itself. and classically seems to be. In; these dimensions. But what happens when science transforms through a major generalization? The hallmark is that not only theories get merged, broken up, such that everything looks different. But that the revolution stretchs right out to the conceptual framework itself...the basic concepts that are upfront necessary to be shared, for basic communication to take place. It's all concepts broken apart, while others merged together. We can put some faith in local realism, but in what dimensionality it's pure, we don't about that yet..we don't know.MWI assumes that it's a safe scientific known. It isn't. In fact everything is against that. Personally, even without comp and without QM, everything is conceptually more simpler than any one-thing approach, which always needs much more particular assumptions. There literally dozens of others. Like assuming major properties are duplicated as is between higher and lower macrostate layers. MWI'ers need to assume local realism at quantum levels as is. Unprecedented if true. Daft in other words. Is it not more simple to assume the same realism at all scale, that to bet on different one? When I throw this at them, the response if there is one is usually6 denial that MWI needs those massive assumptions and would not have happened without them. Arguments come the lines of MWI is derived clean from the wave function or by some other theoretical strtucture, involving simple assumptions only none of them things like local realism. I agree, except that local realism is, as I said above, a consequence of the SWE. They just don't get it, science, anymore. theories as internal theory structure get improved all the time as part of an ongoing progression. Building out an assumption is not a matter of improving theory structure alone. MWI is tied to assuming local realism for all time, because it was only the extreme and disturbing - incomprehensible even to the greats - character of quantum strangenessl. MWI is tied to it, because that is what it took hat an outrageous, unscientific notion like MWI could be taken seriously at all. Frankly, I believe the exact contrary. MWI is what you get from assuming the axioms of quantum mechanics, and that is the unitary evolution. MWI even now, has not defense for itself, without reference to quantum strangeness,, and restorations to classical determinism. Which I think would be enough to make it most plausible than any other (sur)-interpretation. But MWI, which is just the SWE seen from inside, restore not classical determinism, but also, well, local locality and well local realism. It's a quantum theory, and it's wrong, because it's assumptions are that the nature of reality is hard tied forever to principles, That's QM. That tomorrow we might discover that QM is false is just science. But if comp and/or QM is correct, the many-thing will remain with us, indeed. hard tied to the complexities of this dimension, this universe right here. What a joke. The harm done by this theory is immeasurable. A theory sterile for all time, placed all around the boundaries beyond the frontiers of science, that can never be discoverex, never be
Re: Max and FPI
A possible one world solution (that I believe explains the Born rule) is Huw Price's time symmetry. But he got evasive when I asked him about the two slit experiment, imho (and I wasn't convinced by his response on gravitational collapse either...) On 26 March 2014 04:01, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote: The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the fact other interpretations had similar flaws; as if the fact someone else is ill would make you less ill yourself. I think in the world of QM interpretations, with bugger all evidence to decide between them, the game is to even out the playing field in terms of flaws and then chase parsimony. Ofcourse, whether an infinite set of worlds is more or less parsimonious than just one + a few hidden variables, or one + a spooky wave function collapse, depends very much on what definition of parsimonious you find most fitting. MWI is refuted by the massive totally unexamined - some unrealized to this day - assumptions built in at the start. ? MWI seems to me to be the literal understanding of QM (without collapse). It is also a simple consequence of computationalism, except we get a multi-dreams and the question remains open if this defines a universe, a multiverse, or a multi-multiverses, etc. (results points toward a multiverse though). It's like, local realism - a reasonable assumed universal. Local realism is not part of QM assumption. It is a direct consequence of the linearity of the Schroedinger Equation, and the linearity of the tensor products. But only the bare bones. Assuming locarealism means locality as we perceive, As we infer from what we perceive. We cannot *perceive locality by itself. and classically seems to be. In; these dimensions. But what happens when science transforms through a major generalization? The hallmark is that not only theories get merged, broken up, such that everything looks different. But that the revolution stretchs right out to the conceptual framework itself...the basic concepts that are upfront necessary to be shared, for basic communication to take place. It's all concepts broken apart, while others merged together. We can put some faith in local realism, but in what dimensionality it's pure, we don't about that yet..we don't know.MWI assumes that it's a safe scientific known. It isn't. In fact everything is against that. Personally, even without comp and without QM, everything is conceptually more simpler than any one-thing approach, which always needs much more particular assumptions. There literally dozens of others. Like assuming major properties are duplicated as is between higher and lower macrostate layers. MWI'ers need to assume local realism at quantum levels as is. Unprecedented if true. Daft in other words. Is it not more simple to assume the same realism at all scale, that to bet on different one? When I throw this at them, the response if there is one is usually6 denial that MWI needs those massive assumptions and would not have happened without them. Arguments come the lines of MWI is derived clean from the wave function or by some other theoretical strtucture, involving simple assumptions only none of them things like local realism. I agree, except that local realism is, as I said above, a consequence of the SWE. They just don't get it, science, anymore. theories as internal theory structure get improved all the time as part of an ongoing progression. Building out an assumption is not a matter of improving theory structure alone. MWI is tied to assuming local realism for all time, because it was only the extreme and disturbing - incomprehensible even to the greats - character of quantum strangenessl. MWI is tied to it, because that is what it took hat an outrageous, unscientific notion like MWI could be taken seriously at all. Frankly, I believe the exact contrary. MWI is what you get from assuming the axioms of quantum mechanics, and that is the unitary evolution. MWI even now, has not defense for itself, without reference to quantum strangeness,, and restorations to classical determinism. Which I think would be enough to make it most plausible than any other (sur)-interpretation. But MWI, which is just the SWE seen from inside, restore not classical determinism, but also, well, local locality and well local realism. It's a quantum theory, and it's wrong, because it's assumptions are that the nature of reality is hard tied forever to principles, That's QM. That tomorrow we might discover that QM is false is just science. But if comp and/or QM is correct, the many-thing will remain with us, indeed. hard tied to the
Re: Max and FPI
On 24 March 2014 17:48, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? Er, no, lots of people got the wrong end of the stick and argued about it at length. I was one of the ones who said he probably meant ... whatever it turned out he meant. (Maybe I just don't have enough maths background to get the wrong end of the stick on this sort of thing.) -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 3/23/2014 11:27 PM, LizR wrote: On 24 March 2014 17:48, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com mailto:chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? Er, no, lots of people got the wrong end of the stick and argued about it at length. I was one of the ones who said he probably meant ... whatever it turned out he meant. (Maybe I just don't have enough maths background to get the wrong end of the stick on this sort of thing.) I wonder if people on the list are aware of Adrian Kent's proposed test of MWI. Before you look at his paper on the link below, answer this question: By courtesy of genetic engineering and an oppressive Orwellian government, you must choose a reproductive strategy for yourself and all your descendants. You will become a member of either humans-a or humans-b. Each generation, say 70yrs, all humans-a die and leave one progeny, so the human-a population stays constant. But each generation the human-b population will, in accordance with a 0.5 probability quantum event, either go extinct, none have progeny, or they triple, each one dies leaving three progeny. Then the question is, which new subspecies do you want to join, human-a or human-b? Kent's paper is arXiv:0905.0624v2. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 24 March 2014 17:48, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. I always find presentations disappointing in terms of information content, at least when compared to papers and articles, but I was more than happy to see Max in the flesh (and Richard Feynman for an added bonus). He was alarmingly apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the fact other interpretations had similar flaws; as if the fact someone else is ill would make you less ill yourself. I think in the world of QM interpretations, with bugger all evidence to decide between them, the game is to even out the playing field in terms of flaws and then chase parsimony. Ofcourse, whether an infinite set of worlds is more or less parsimonious than just one + a few hidden variables, or one + a spooky wave function collapse, depends very much on what definition of parsimonious you find most fitting. What flaws were those? He seemed to be saying that you didn't need Everett to get a multiverse - if you have eternal inflation, you get one anyway. I didn't see anything particularly apologetic about that. His definition of parsimony is like Russell's (Standish, not Bertrand) - which can be summed up as everything possible = zero information. We got the classic intuition buster argument. You know, screw intuition because it evolved in the sub Saharan savannah to help us lob spears. God forbid that it evolved in sub Saharan society to help spot hogwash. Apart from the fact that he confuses Tau for intuition, even before QM and Relativity came along, intuition has never been the arbiter of right and wrong. There have always been counter intuitive facts, there is nothing new about the current situation. Theres no more reason to distrust intuition now that there has been before. Its only ever been a guide and as such should be trusted as much now as it ever was. And that was never entirely. I can't offhand see what's wrong with this argument, however. Indeed you seem to be saying it's valid, so what shouldn't Max use it? Worst of all though was that I wanted to hear about his level 4 multiverse but he didn't address it except to comment that it was a little nutty. But really, in the world of QM interpretation barking mad is where things start. I would have liked to have heard more about that, too (but I'm not sure if he has anything new to say about it that wasn't in the Scientific American article...) -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On 3/24/2014 12:17 AM, LizR wrote: Do you mean which population do I want to join in order to have the greatest chance of leaving descendants? I think that's the underlying assumption - but I didn't want to bias answers by putting it that way. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
Without a specific reason for wanting to be in a population the question is meaningless in my opinion, one could have all sorts of reasons in theory, so I'll assume that the point is to maximise your descendants. So I suppose the question boils down to what is the representation of each population in the multiverse, assuming there really IS a multiverse... The human-a population is constant, barring accidents, while pop-b will bifurcate every 70 years into two branches with 3 in one and 0 in the other. This will also bifurcate pop-a into 1 offspring in each branch, so it seems like b gets 1.5 offspring per generation, on average over the multiverse. However, once pop-b stops, presumably it stops for good. So all the possible branches of the multiverse tree that fan out from the root to the no descendants side are empty of pop-b, assuming the world continues to branch at the same rate, e.g. once every 70 years in all branches, regardless of who is in each branch. Pop-b only continues down a single branch, which is equivalent to getting a continuous row of heads in a quantum coin toss. After N generations there will be 1 branch with 3^N pop-b descendants and 2^N-1 branches empty of pop-b, each with a member of pop-a. Overall, at generation N a pop-a member will have 2^N descendants spread over 2^N branches, while a pop-b member has 3^N descendants in one branch. So pop-b grows a lot faster over the entire multiverse, 1,3,9,27,81... as opposed to 1,2,4,8,16... So pop-b wins out, as long as there is definitely a multiverse involved. Otherwise (with wavefunction collapse) the chance of there being ANY pop-b members at generation N is only 1 in 2^N, so although the total expected payoff for pop-b exceeds that for pop-a one might still decide to go for a safe, but smaller, amount of happiness, because without a multiverse one is gambling on something with astronomical odds against it, everntually, like winning the lottery (since the *entire* pop-b goes extinct once the coin toss comes out tails).. If so, then the answer is ... Use the above maths to work out the expected descendants for each population, i.e. 1.5 to 1, then multiply that result by your confidence in the multiverse existing. So if you are 50% confident, the result becomes 0.75 to 1 and you should go for pop-a; if you're 90% confident you get 1.35 to 1 and should go for pop-b. Now to read that paper, when I have the time... -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote: The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the fact other interpretations had similar flaws; as if the fact someone else is ill would make you less ill yourself. I think in the world of QM interpretations, with bugger all evidence to decide between them, the game is to even out the playing field in terms of flaws and then chase parsimony. Ofcourse, whether an infinite set of worlds is more or less parsimonious than just one + a few hidden variables, or one + a spooky wave function collapse, depends very much on what definition of parsimonious you find most fitting. MWI is refuted by the massive totally unexamined - some unrealized to this day - assumptions built in at the start. It's like, local realism - a reasonable assumed universal. But only the bare bones. Assuming locarealism means locality as we perceive, and classically seems to be. In; these dimensions. But what happens when science transforms through a major generalization? The hallmark is that not only theories get merged, broken up, such that everything looks different. But that the revolution stretchs right out to the conceptual framework itself...the basic concepts that are upfront necessary to be shared, for basic communication to take place. It's all concepts broken apart, while others merged together. We can put some faith in local realism, but in what dimensionality it's pure, we don't about that yet..we don't know.MWI assumes that it's a safe scientific known. It isn't. In fact everything is against that. There literally dozens of others. Like assuming major properties are duplicated as is between higher and lower macrostate layers. MWI'ers need to assume local realism at quantum levels as is. Unprecedented if true. Daft in other words. When I throw this at them, the response if there is one is usually6 denial that MWI needs those massive assumptions and would not have happened without them. Arguments come the lines of MWI is derived clean from the wave function or by some other theoretical strtucture, involving simple assumptions only none of them things like local realism. They just don't get it, science, anymore. theories as internal theory structure get improved all the time as part of an ongoing progression. Building out an assumption is not a matter of improving theory structure alone. MWI is tied to assuming local realism for all time, because it was only the extreme and disturbing - incomprehensible even to the greats - character of quantum strangenessl. MWI is tied to it, because that is what it took hat an outrageous, unscientific notion like MWI could be taken seriously at all. MWI even now, has not defense for itself, without reference to quantum strangeness,, and restorations to classical determinism. It's a quantum theory, and it's wrong, because it's assumptions are that the nature of reality is hard tied forever to principles, hard tied to the complexities of this dimension, this universe right here. What a joke. The harm done by this theory is immeasurable. A theory sterile for all time, placed all around the boundaries beyond the frontiers of science, that can never be discoverex, never be passed through, never be built over, or under. It's an act of murder of the human and scientific dreamss -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
He's talking about the fact that you get about 50% 0s and 50% 1s ... as we were discussing recently. I trust this clears up any lingering doubts about what he meant by this. On 23 March 2014 18:50, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:27:13PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: Here's Max! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC0zHIf2Gkw Brent Thanks for that. One thing that struck me was how ordinary the FPI argument (UDA step 3) seems when Max talks about it. But also how it generalises to unequal probabilities - which was the thrust of that paper we discussed here a couple of years ago - in generating the Born rule from counting arguments. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: Max and FPI
The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the fact other interpretations had similar flaws; as if the fact someone else is ill would make you less ill yourself. I think in the world of QM interpretations, with bugger all evidence to decide between them, the game is to even out the playing field in terms of flaws and then chase parsimony. Ofcourse, whether an infinite set of worlds is more or less parsimonious than just one + a few hidden variables, or one + a spooky wave function collapse, depends very much on what definition of parsimonious you find most fitting. We got the classic intuition buster argument. You know, screw intuition because it evolved in the sub Saharan savannah to help us lob spears. God forbid that it evolved in sub Saharan society to help spot hogwash. Apart from the fact that he confuses Tau for intuition, even before QM and Relativity came along, intuition has never been the arbiter of right and wrong. There have always been counter intuitive facts, there is nothing new about the current situation. Theres no more reason to distrust intuition now that there has been before. Its only ever been a guide and as such should be trusted as much now as it ever was. And that was never entirely. Worst of all though was that I wanted to hear about his level 4 multiverse but he didn't address it except to comment that it was a little nutty. But really, in the world of QM interpretation barking mad is where things start. Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 21:05:53 +1300 Subject: Re: Max and FPI From: lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com He's talking about the fact that you get about 50% 0s and 50% 1s ... as we were discussing recently. I trust this clears up any lingering doubts about what he meant by this. On 23 March 2014 18:50, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:27:13PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: Here's Max! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC0zHIf2Gkw Brent Thanks for that. One thing that struck me was how ordinary the FPI argument (UDA step 3) seems when Max talks about it. But also how it generalises to unequal probabilities - which was the thrust of that paper we discussed here a couple of years ago - in generating the Born rule from counting arguments. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Max and FPI
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:27:13PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: Here's Max! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC0zHIf2Gkw Brent Thanks for that. One thing that struck me was how ordinary the FPI argument (UDA step 3) seems when Max talks about it. But also how it generalises to unequal probabilities - which was the thrust of that paper we discussed here a couple of years ago - in generating the Born rule from counting arguments. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Max and FPI
Here's Max! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC0zHIf2Gkw 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.