Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 20 Feb 2020, at 01:19, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 2:58:22 AM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 2:31:37 AM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 
> 
> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 10:18, Alan Grayson > a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:35:28 AM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 
> 
> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 08:30, Alan Grayson > a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:10:54 AM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 
> 
> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 08:03, Quentin Anciaux > a écrit 
> :
> 
> 
> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 07:36, Alan Grayson > a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 11:25:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 
> 
> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 01:24, Alan Grayson > a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 4:13:03 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 
> 
> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 23:36, Alan Grayson > a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 
> 
> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:54, Alan Grayson > a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 2:22:46 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 
> 
> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:15, Alan Grayson > a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 1:17:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 
> 
> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 16:43, Alan Grayson > a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 6:59:11 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>  
>>> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't mean THIS world 
>>> doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the process of measurement. AG 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> That's nice.
>>> 
>>> @philipthrift 
>>> 
>>> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement is done in this 
>>> world, it splits into two worlds, each with one of the possible 
>>> measurements. I see only one world being created, with this world remaining 
>>> intact, and then comes the second measurement, with its opposite occurring 
>>> in another world, or perhaps in the same world created by the first 
>>> measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds created is N, or less. 
>>> Isn't this what the MWI means? AG 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible outcomes: O1 and 
>>> O2.
>>> There are not two measurements M1 and M2.
>>> 
>>> Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not assigned "this" 
>>> and the other assigned "that", They have equal status in MWI reality. One 
>>> is not privileged over the other in any way.
>>> 
>>> @philipthrift
>>> 
>>> This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I wrote, which is 
>>> pretty simple. AG
>>> 
>>> 
>>> What you wrote has nothing to do with MWI. You created something different 
>>> from MWI (in the Carroll sense).
>>> But's OK to have your own interpretation. 
>>> 
>>> It's your own "interpretation", not MWI.  Publish it and call it something 
>>> else.
>>> 
>>> @philipthrift 
>>> 
>>> I suppose I'm just following Tegmark; everything that CAN happen, MUST 
>>> happen.  So, when an observer measures UP (or DN) in THIS world, another 
>>> world comes into existence wherein an observer MUST measure DN (or UP). 
>>> From this I get N or less worlds for N trials where the results of 
>>> measurements are binary, such as spin. Maybe not precisely MWI, but 
>>> definitely less stupid -- but still egregiously stupid. How could MWI be 
>>> remotely correctly if it alleges THIS world splits when it's never observed?
>> 
>> Everett explains this entirely in his long text. The observer cannot feel 
>> the split, nor observe it directly. But if QM (without collapse) is correct, 
>> it is up to the Uni-World to provide explanation of how “nature” makes some 
>> terms in the superposition disappear.
>> 
>> Also, the MW is also a consequence of Descartes (mechanism) + 
>> Turing-Church-Post-Kleene (i.e. the discovery of the computer … in the 
>> elementary arithmetical reality). 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> But now you say that for Everett there's no such thing as THIS world. All 
>>> this stuff, including Bruno's BS, is so profoundly dumb, I can't believe 
>>> we're even discussing it! Was it Brent on another thread who claimed many 
>>> physicists have become cultists? Whoever made that claim qualifies for 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 19 Feb 2020, at 21:03, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 10:04:50 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 19 Feb 2020, at 12:14, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 3:13:35 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:34:20 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:54:21 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> What is being computed? What, or who wrote the program? Or is there no 
>> program? If no program, your claim makes no sense in being an analogy with 
>> computers we have.  AG 
>> 
>>  Matter is
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programmable_matter 
>> 
>> 
>> but naturally, not synthetically.
>> 
>> 
>> @philipthrift
>> 
>> Matter computes when it has specific structures and inputs. It doesn't 
>> create or sustain reality in an ontological sense, which is what the 
>> argument is about. That is, matter and computations in the link you offer, 
>> is preexisting and assumed. AG 
>> 
>> 
>> That's exactly right.
>> 
>> And also all human-made computers we've ever made - from abacus to laptop - 
>> perform computations by moving stuff - beads or electrons - from one place 
>> to another.
> 
> This describes the computation implemented in a physical reality. But since 
> Gödel 1931, we know (or should know) that they are implemented also in 
> arithmetic. If you believe that only the physical computations can be 
> conscious, you might try to find what in matter is not Turing emulable, and 
> would play a role in consciousness. Now, if you find that, you will have to 
> reject Digital Mechanism, which is my point.
> 
> Bruno 
> 
> 
> 
>> There is no external, abstract computation outside matter that has ever 
>> existed.
>> 
>> 
>> @philipthrift 
>> 
> 
> That numerical machines can emulate the apparent behavior of everything is 
> the conventional view of science (what Philip Goff's book is about), and what 
> Tegmark and every other physicist I've come across says. (It from [qu]bit.)
> 
> But the experiential (Galen Strawson) machine (intrinsically conscious) 
> relies on nonnumerical entities.


Yes, and the universal machine go in the direction of Galen Strawson. The 
universal machine knows already that only a very tiny part of the arithmetical 
reality is Turing emulable (the sigma_1 part). 

And the same occur with the physical reality, which has to be non Turing 
emulable. If you can survive with Digital brain, then it is impossible to 
emulate your body, or *any* part of your body with a computer.

And we have the same with consciousness, at least in the 1p view. If []p (my 
belief) is Turing emulable, then I can believe that me-1p ([]p & p, at the meta 
level) is Turing emulable. Consciousness is a semantical notion, and no 
semantic is Turing emulable. Truth is beyond all machine, even when we restrict 
the truth on the 3p arithmetical reality. The general concept of truth is not 
just not computable, it is, like truth, not even definable.

Digital Physicalism (the physical universe exist and is Turing emulable) is 
false, with or without mechanism.
Indeed Digital physicalism entails Digital Mechanism, but, very importantly, 
Digital Mechanism refutes Digital Physicalism (see my post or paper, or ask). 
So Digital Physicalism entails the negation of Physical Digitalism, and so 
Digital physicalism must be false, no matter what.

I am not sure Tegmark defend the digital physicalism, as he is open to 
mathematicalism, which is something a priori larger and typically non digital 
physicalist, but can still be phsyicaliist, by choosing a mathematical 
structure among another.

It is the lack of knowledge in logic which makes some (perhaps many) people 
confusing digital physicalism and digital mechanism. I make it clear that those 
thing are at the antipode of each other.

Sometimes I sum ins saying “If I am a machine, then everything which is not me 
is highly not computable (not a machine).
Or better: If the part of my body relevant to sustain my consciousness is 
Turing emulable, then neither my body, nor my consciousness are Turing emulable.

Bruno




> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5b53a11e-d780-49b9-9d6d-a8efd378bfa8%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

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

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 2:58:22 AM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 2:31:37 AM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 10:18, Alan Grayson  a 
>> écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:35:28 AM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux 
>>> wrote:



 Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 08:30, Alan Grayson  a 
 écrit :

>
>
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:10:54 AM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 08:03, Quentin Anciaux  a 
>> écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 07:36, Alan Grayson  a 
>>> écrit :
>>>


 On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 11:25:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 01:24, Alan Grayson  
> a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 4:13:03 PM UTC-7, Quentin 
>> Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 23:36, Alan Grayson  
>>> a écrit :
>>>


 On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-7, Quentin 
 Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:54, Alan Grayson <
> agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 2:22:46 PM UTC-7, Quentin 
>> Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:15, Alan Grayson <
>>> agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>


 On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 1:17:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin 
 Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 16:43, Alan Grayson <
> agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 6:59:11 AM UTC-7, Bruno 
>> Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson <
>>> agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno 
>>> Marchal wrote:


 On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson <
 agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, 
 Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan 
> Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, 
>> Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, 
>>> Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, 
 Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM 
> UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>  
>> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It 
>> doesn't mean THIS world doesn't exist, or somehow 
>> disappears in the process 
>> of measurement. AG 
>>
>
>
> That's nice.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

 Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary 
 measurement is done in this world, it splits into two 
 worlds, each with one 
 of the possible measurements. I see only one world 
 being created, with this 
 world remaining intact, and then comes the second 
 measurement, with its 
 opposite occurring in another world, or perhaps in the 
 same world created 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 10:04:50 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 19 Feb 2020, at 12:14, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 3:13:35 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:34:20 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:54:21 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:



 *What is being computed? What, or who wrote the program? Or is there no 
 program? If no program, your claim makes no sense in being an analogy with 
 computers we have.  AG *

>>>
>>>  Matter is
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programmable_matter
>>>
>>> but naturally, not synthetically.
>>>
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> Matter computes when it has specific structures and inputs. It doesn't 
>> create or sustain reality in an ontological sense, which is what the 
>> argument is about. That is, matter and computations in the link you offer, 
>> is preexisting and assumed. AG 
>>
>
>
> That's exactly right.
>
> And also all human-made computers we've ever made - from abacus to laptop 
> - perform computations by moving stuff - beads or electrons - from one 
> place to another. 
>
>
> This describes the computation implemented in a physical reality. But 
> since Gödel 1931, we know (or should know) that they are implemented also 
> in arithmetic. If you believe that only the physical computations can be 
> conscious, you might try to find what in matter is not Turing emulable, and 
> would play a role in consciousness. Now, if you find that, you will have to 
> reject Digital Mechanism, which is my point.
>
> Bruno 
>
>
>
> There is no external, abstract computation outside matter that has ever 
> existed.
>
>
> @philipthrift 
>
>
> That numerical machines can emulate the apparent behavior of everything is 
the conventional view of science (what Philip Goff's book is about), and 
what Tegmark and every other physicist I've come across says. (It from 
[qu]bit.)

But the experiential (Galen Strawson) machine (intrinsically conscious) 
relies on nonnumerical entities.

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5b53a11e-d780-49b9-9d6d-a8efd378bfa8%40googlegroups.com.

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 19 Feb 2020, at 12:14, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 3:13:35 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:34:20 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:54:21 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> What is being computed? What, or who wrote the program? Or is there no 
> program? If no program, your claim makes no sense in being an analogy with 
> computers we have.  AG 
> 
>  Matter is
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programmable_matter 
> 
> 
> but naturally, not synthetically.
> 
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> Matter computes when it has specific structures and inputs. It doesn't create 
> or sustain reality in an ontological sense, which is what the argument is 
> about. That is, matter and computations in the link you offer, is preexisting 
> and assumed. AG 
> 
> 
> That's exactly right.
> 
> And also all human-made computers we've ever made - from abacus to laptop - 
> perform computations by moving stuff - beads or electrons - from one place to 
> another.

This describes the computation implemented in a physical reality. But since 
Gödel 1931, we know (or should know) that they are implemented also in 
arithmetic. If you believe that only the physical computations can be 
conscious, you might try to find what in matter is not Turing emulable, and 
would play a role in consciousness. Now, if you find that, you will have to 
reject Digital Mechanism, which is my point.

Bruno 



> There is no external, abstract computation outside matter that has ever 
> existed.
> 
> 
> @philipthrift 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c7c607ec-9d65-4753-b2a1-3fab87abb6a5%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/52540F15-A7E0-480F-9968-D1115BB24E6E%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 19 Feb 2020, at 10:58, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 2:31:37 AM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 
> 
> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 10:18, Alan Grayson  > a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:35:28 AM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 
> 
> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 08:30, Alan Grayson > a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:10:54 AM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 
> 
> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 08:03, Quentin Anciaux > a écrit 
> :
> 
> 
> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 07:36, Alan Grayson > a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 11:25:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 
> 
> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 01:24, Alan Grayson > a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 4:13:03 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 
> 
> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 23:36, Alan Grayson > a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 
> 
> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:54, Alan Grayson > a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 2:22:46 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 
> 
> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:15, Alan Grayson > a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 1:17:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 
> 
> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 16:43, Alan Grayson > a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 6:59:11 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>  
>>> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't mean THIS world 
>>> doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the process of measurement. AG 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> That's nice.
>>> 
>>> @philipthrift 
>>> 
>>> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement is done in this 
>>> world, it splits into two worlds, each with one of the possible 
>>> measurements. I see only one world being created, with this world remaining 
>>> intact, and then comes the second measurement, with its opposite occurring 
>>> in another world, or perhaps in the same world created by the first 
>>> measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds created is N, or less. 
>>> Isn't this what the MWI means? AG 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible outcomes: O1 and 
>>> O2.
>>> There are not two measurements M1 and M2.
>>> 
>>> Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not assigned "this" 
>>> and the other assigned "that", They have equal status in MWI reality. One 
>>> is not privileged over the other in any way.
>>> 
>>> @philipthrift
>>> 
>>> This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I wrote, which is 
>>> pretty simple. AG
>>> 
>>> 
>>> What you wrote has nothing to do with MWI. You created something different 
>>> from MWI (in the Carroll sense).
>>> But's OK to have your own interpretation. 
>>> 
>>> It's your own "interpretation", not MWI.  Publish it and call it something 
>>> else.
>>> 
>>> @philipthrift 
>>> 
>>> I suppose I'm just following Tegmark; everything that CAN happen, MUST 
>>> happen.  So, when an observer measures UP (or DN) in THIS world, another 
>>> world comes into existence wherein an observer MUST measure DN (or UP). 
>>> From this I get N or less worlds for N trials where the results of 
>>> measurements are binary, such as spin. Maybe not precisely MWI, but 
>>> definitely less stupid -- but still egregiously stupid. How could MWI be 
>>> remotely correctly if it alleges THIS world splits when it's never observed?
>> 
>> Everett explains this entirely in his long text. The observer cannot feel 
>> the split, nor observe it directly. But if QM (without collapse) is correct, 
>> it is up to the Uni-World to provide explanation of how “nature” makes some 
>> terms in the superposition disappear.
>> 
>> Also, the MW is also a consequence of Descartes (mechanism) + 
>> Turing-Church-Post-Kleene (i.e. the discovery of the computer … in the 
>> elementary arithmetical reality). 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> But now you say that for Everett there's no such thing as THIS world. All 
>>> this stuff, including Bruno's BS, is so profoundly dumb, I can't believe 
>>> we're even discussing it! Was it Brent on another thread who claimed many 
>>> physicists have become cultists? Whoever made that claim qualifies for 
>>> sanity. AG
>> 
>> 
>> Are you saying that the brain is not Turing emulable? 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 19 Feb 2020, at 07:25, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 01:24, Alan Grayson  > a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 4:13:03 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 
> 
> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 23:36, Alan Grayson > a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 
> 
> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:54, Alan Grayson > a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 2:22:46 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 
> 
> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:15, Alan Grayson > a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 1:17:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 
> 
> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 16:43, Alan Grayson > a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 6:59:11 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>  
>>> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't mean THIS world 
>>> doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the process of measurement. AG 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> That's nice.
>>> 
>>> @philipthrift 
>>> 
>>> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement is done in this 
>>> world, it splits into two worlds, each with one of the possible 
>>> measurements. I see only one world being created, with this world remaining 
>>> intact, and then comes the second measurement, with its opposite occurring 
>>> in another world, or perhaps in the same world created by the first 
>>> measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds created is N, or less. 
>>> Isn't this what the MWI means? AG 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible outcomes: O1 and 
>>> O2.
>>> There are not two measurements M1 and M2.
>>> 
>>> Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not assigned "this" 
>>> and the other assigned "that", They have equal status in MWI reality. One 
>>> is not privileged over the other in any way.
>>> 
>>> @philipthrift
>>> 
>>> This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I wrote, which is 
>>> pretty simple. AG
>>> 
>>> 
>>> What you wrote has nothing to do with MWI. You created something different 
>>> from MWI (in the Carroll sense).
>>> But's OK to have your own interpretation. 
>>> 
>>> It's your own "interpretation", not MWI.  Publish it and call it something 
>>> else.
>>> 
>>> @philipthrift 
>>> 
>>> I suppose I'm just following Tegmark; everything that CAN happen, MUST 
>>> happen.  So, when an observer measures UP (or DN) in THIS world, another 
>>> world comes into existence wherein an observer MUST measure DN (or UP). 
>>> From this I get N or less worlds for N trials where the results of 
>>> measurements are binary, such as spin. Maybe not precisely MWI, but 
>>> definitely less stupid -- but still egregiously stupid. How could MWI be 
>>> remotely correctly if it alleges THIS world splits when it's never observed?
>> 
>> Everett explains this entirely in his long text. The observer cannot feel 
>> the split, nor observe it directly. But if QM (without collapse) is correct, 
>> it is up to the Uni-World to provide explanation of how “nature” makes some 
>> terms in the superposition disappear.
>> 
>> Also, the MW is also a consequence of Descartes (mechanism) + 
>> Turing-Church-Post-Kleene (i.e. the discovery of the computer … in the 
>> elementary arithmetical reality). 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> But now you say that for Everett there's no such thing as THIS world. All 
>>> this stuff, including Bruno's BS, is so profoundly dumb, I can't believe 
>>> we're even discussing it! Was it Brent on another thread who claimed many 
>>> physicists have become cultists? Whoever made that claim qualifies for 
>>> sanity. AG
>> 
>> 
>> Are you saying that the brain is not Turing emulable? Or what? All what I 
>> say follows from this “intuitively”, but is also recovered by the 
>> Platonician’s definition used in epistemology, when modelling  “rational 
>> belief” by “provability”, which is suggested by incompleteness. I do know 
>> philosophers who are not convinced, by I don’t do philosophy, I prefer to 
>> show a theory and its testability, and indeed I show exactly how to test 
>> experimentally between Mechanism and (Weak) Materialism (physicalism), and I 
>> show that quantum mechanics confirms Mechanism.
>> 
>> I am not the guy who comes 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 18 Feb 2020, at 16:43, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 6:59:11 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>  
>>> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't mean THIS world 
>>> doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the process of measurement. AG 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> That's nice.
>>> 
>>> @philipthrift 
>>> 
>>> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement is done in this 
>>> world, it splits into two worlds, each with one of the possible 
>>> measurements. I see only one world being created, with this world remaining 
>>> intact, and then comes the second measurement, with its opposite occurring 
>>> in another world, or perhaps in the same world created by the first 
>>> measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds created is N, or less. 
>>> Isn't this what the MWI means? AG 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible outcomes: O1 and 
>>> O2.
>>> There are not two measurements M1 and M2.
>>> 
>>> Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not assigned "this" 
>>> and the other assigned "that", They have equal status in MWI reality. One 
>>> is not privileged over the other in any way.
>>> 
>>> @philipthrift
>>> 
>>> This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I wrote, which is 
>>> pretty simple. AG
>>> 
>>> 
>>> What you wrote has nothing to do with MWI. You created something different 
>>> from MWI (in the Carroll sense).
>>> But's OK to have your own interpretation. 
>>> 
>>> It's your own "interpretation", not MWI.  Publish it and call it something 
>>> else.
>>> 
>>> @philipthrift 
>>> 
>>> I suppose I'm just following Tegmark; everything that CAN happen, MUST 
>>> happen.  So, when an observer measures UP (or DN) in THIS world, another 
>>> world comes into existence wherein an observer MUST measure DN (or UP). 
>>> From this I get N or less worlds for N trials where the results of 
>>> measurements are binary, such as spin. Maybe not precisely MWI, but 
>>> definitely less stupid -- but still egregiously stupid. How could MWI be 
>>> remotely correctly if it alleges THIS world splits when it's never observed?
>> 
>> Everett explains this entirely in his long text. The observer cannot feel 
>> the split, nor observe it directly. But if QM (without collapse) is correct, 
>> it is up to the Uni-World to provide explanation of how “nature” makes some 
>> terms in the superposition disappear.
>> 
>> Also, the MW is also a consequence of Descartes (mechanism) + 
>> Turing-Church-Post-Kleene (i.e. the discovery of the computer … in the 
>> elementary arithmetical reality). 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> But now you say that for Everett there's no such thing as THIS world. All 
>>> this stuff, including Bruno's BS, is so profoundly dumb, I can't believe 
>>> we're even discussing it! Was it Brent on another thread who claimed many 
>>> physicists have become cultists? Whoever made that claim qualifies for 
>>> sanity. AG
>> 
>> 
>> Are you saying that the brain is not Turing emulable? Or what? All what I 
>> say follows from this “intuitively”, but is also recovered by the 
>> Platonician’s definition used in epistemology, when modelling  “rational 
>> belief” by “provability”, which is suggested by incompleteness. I do know 
>> philosophers who are not convinced, by I don’t do philosophy, I prefer to 
>> show a theory and its testability, and indeed I show exactly how to test 
>> experimentally between Mechanism and (Weak) Materialism (physicalism), and I 
>> show that quantum mechanics confirms Mechanism.
>> 
>> I am not the guy who comes with a new theory. I am just showing that the old 
>> and venerable Mechanist theory (in biology, psychology) is experimentally 
>> testable, and that QM without-collapse confirms it, like I show also that 
>> quantum logic confirms it.
>> 
>> What is your take on the WM-duplication? 
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> PS if you could avoid the insults, and reason instead, that would be nice. 
>> Leave the insults to those who have no arguments.
>> 
>> As I see it, you have no arguments for MW except hand-waving. Do unicorns 
>> exist because they can exist?
> 
> Exists in which sense? They certainly are fictive object. Unicorn does not 
> exist, because by definition they belong to 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 3:13:35 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:34:20 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:54:21 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *What is being computed? What, or who wrote the program? Or is there no 
>>> program? If no program, your claim makes no sense in being an analogy with 
>>> computers we have.  AG *
>>>
>>
>>  Matter is
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programmable_matter
>>
>> but naturally, not synthetically.
>>
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> Matter computes when it has specific structures and inputs. It doesn't 
> create or sustain reality in an ontological sense, which is what the 
> argument is about. That is, matter and computations in the link you offer, 
> is preexisting and assumed. AG 
>


That's exactly right.

And also all human-made computers we've ever made - from abacus to laptop - 
perform computations by moving stuff - beads or electrons - from one place 
to another. There is no external, abstract computation outside matter that 
has ever existed.


@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c7c607ec-9d65-4753-b2a1-3fab87abb6a5%40googlegroups.com.

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 2:31:37 AM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 10:18, Alan Grayson  > a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:35:28 AM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 08:30, Alan Grayson  a 
>>> écrit :
>>>


 On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:10:54 AM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 08:03, Quentin Anciaux  a 
> écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 07:36, Alan Grayson  a 
>> écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 11:25:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux 
>>> wrote:



 Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 01:24, Alan Grayson  
 a écrit :

>
>
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 4:13:03 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 23:36, Alan Grayson  
>> a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-7, Quentin 
>>> Anciaux wrote:



 Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:54, Alan Grayson <
 agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

>
>
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 2:22:46 PM UTC-7, Quentin 
> Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:15, Alan Grayson <
>> agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 1:17:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin 
>>> Anciaux wrote:



 Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 16:43, Alan Grayson <
 agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

>
>
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 6:59:11 AM UTC-7, Bruno 
> Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson <
>> agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno 
>> Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson <
>>> agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip 
>>> Thrift wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan 
 Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, 
> Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, 
>> Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, 
>>> Philip Thrift wrote:



 On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, 
 Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>  
> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It 
> doesn't mean THIS world doesn't exist, or somehow 
> disappears in the process 
> of measurement. AG 
>


 That's nice.

 @philipthrift 

>>>
>>> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary 
>>> measurement is done in this world, it splits into two 
>>> worlds, each with one 
>>> of the possible measurements. I see only one world 
>>> being created, with this 
>>> world remaining intact, and then comes the second 
>>> measurement, with its 
>>> opposite occurring in another world, or perhaps in the 
>>> same world created 
>>> by the first measurement. So for N trials, the number 
>>> of worlds created is 
>>> N, or less. Isn't this what the MWI means? AG 
>>>

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 10:18, Alan Grayson  a
écrit :

>
>
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:35:28 AM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 08:30, Alan Grayson  a
>> écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:10:54 AM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux
>>> wrote:



 Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 08:03, Quentin Anciaux  a
 écrit :

>
>
> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 07:36, Alan Grayson  a
> écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 11:25:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 01:24, Alan Grayson  a
>>> écrit :
>>>


 On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 4:13:03 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux
 wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 23:36, Alan Grayson 
> a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-7, Quentin
>> Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:54, Alan Grayson 
>>> a écrit :
>>>


 On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 2:22:46 PM UTC-7, Quentin
 Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:15, Alan Grayson <
> agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 1:17:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin
>> Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 16:43, Alan Grayson <
>>> agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>


 On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 6:59:11 AM UTC-7, Bruno
 Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson <
> agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno
> Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson <
>> agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip
>> Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan
>>> Grayson wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7,
 Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan
> Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7,
>> Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6,
>>> Alan Grayson wrote:


 I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It
 doesn't mean THIS world doesn't exist, or somehow 
 disappears in the process
 of measurement. AG

>>>
>>>
>>> That's nice.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary
>> measurement is done in this world, it splits into two 
>> worlds, each with one
>> of the possible measurements. I see only one world being 
>> created, with this
>> world remaining intact, and then comes the second 
>> measurement, with its
>> opposite occurring in another world, or perhaps in the 
>> same world created
>> by the first measurement. So for N trials, the number of 
>> worlds created is
>> N, or less. Isn't this what the MWI means? AG
>>
>
>
>
> There is one measurement M in world w, with two
> possible outcomes: O1 and O2.
> There are not two measurements M1 and M2.
>
> Of the two 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:35:28 AM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 08:30, Alan Grayson  > a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:10:54 AM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 08:03, Quentin Anciaux  a 
>>> écrit :
>>>


 Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 07:36, Alan Grayson  a 
 écrit :

>
>
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 11:25:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 01:24, Alan Grayson  a 
>> écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 4:13:03 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux 
>>> wrote:



 Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 23:36, Alan Grayson  
 a écrit :

>
>
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:54, Alan Grayson  
>> a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 2:22:46 PM UTC-7, Quentin 
>>> Anciaux wrote:



 Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:15, Alan Grayson <
 agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

>
>
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 1:17:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin 
> Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 16:43, Alan Grayson <
>> agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 6:59:11 AM UTC-7, Bruno 
>>> Marchal wrote:


 On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson  
 wrote:



 On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno 
 Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson <
> agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip 
> Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan 
>> Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip 
>>> Thrift wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan 
 Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, 
> Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, 
>> Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>  
>>> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It 
>>> doesn't mean THIS world doesn't exist, or somehow 
>>> disappears in the process 
>>> of measurement. AG 
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's nice.
>>
>> @philipthrift 
>>
>
> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary 
> measurement is done in this world, it splits into two 
> worlds, each with one 
> of the possible measurements. I see only one world being 
> created, with this 
> world remaining intact, and then comes the second 
> measurement, with its 
> opposite occurring in another world, or perhaps in the 
> same world created 
> by the first measurement. So for N trials, the number of 
> worlds created is 
> N, or less. Isn't this what the MWI means? AG 
>



 There is one measurement M in world w, with two 
 possible outcomes: O1 and O2.
 There are not two measurements M1 and M2.

 Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is 
 not assigned "this" and the other assigned "that", They 
 have equal status 
 in MWI reality. One is 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:34:20 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:54:21 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> *What is being computed? What, or who wrote the program? Or is there no 
>> program? If no program, your claim makes no sense in being an analogy with 
>> computers we have.  AG *
>>
>
>  Matter is
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programmable_matter
>
> but naturally, not synthetically.
>
>
> @philipthrift
>

Matter computes when it has specific structures and inputs. It doesn't 
create or sustain reality in an ontological sense, which is what the 
argument is about. That is, matter and computations in the link you offer, 
is preexisting and assumed. AG 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3f2a6607-ef76-444f-8887-54859de8b514%40googlegroups.com.

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 08:30, Alan Grayson  a
écrit :

>
>
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:10:54 AM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 08:03, Quentin Anciaux  a
>> écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 07:36, Alan Grayson  a
>>> écrit :
>>>


 On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 11:25:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux
 wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 01:24, Alan Grayson  a
> écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 4:13:03 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 23:36, Alan Grayson  a
>>> écrit :
>>>


 On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux
 wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:54, Alan Grayson 
> a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 2:22:46 PM UTC-7, Quentin
>> Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:15, Alan Grayson 
>>> a écrit :
>>>


 On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 1:17:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin
 Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 16:43, Alan Grayson <
> agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 6:59:11 AM UTC-7, Bruno
>> Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno
>>> Marchal wrote:


 On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson 
 wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip
 Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan
> Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip
>> Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan
>>> Grayson wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7,
 Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6,
> Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It
>> doesn't mean THIS world doesn't exist, or somehow 
>> disappears in the process
>> of measurement. AG
>>
>
>
> That's nice.
>
> @philipthrift
>

 Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary
 measurement is done in this world, it splits into two 
 worlds, each with one
 of the possible measurements. I see only one world being 
 created, with this
 world remaining intact, and then comes the second 
 measurement, with its
 opposite occurring in another world, or perhaps in the 
 same world created
 by the first measurement. So for N trials, the number of 
 worlds created is
 N, or less. Isn't this what the MWI means? AG

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible
>>> outcomes: O1 and O2.
>>> There are not two measurements M1 and M2.
>>>
>>> Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not
>>> assigned "this" and the other assigned "that", They have 
>>> equal status in
>>> MWI reality. One is not privileged over the other in any 
>>> way.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I
>> wrote, which is pretty simple. AG
>>

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:54:21 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> *What is being computed? What, or who wrote the program? Or is there no 
> program? If no program, your claim makes no sense in being an analogy with 
> computers we have.  AG *
>

 Matter is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programmable_matter

but naturally, not synthetically.


@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e028f7eb-8c95-4b4e-9c5d-8db5aad433d9%40googlegroups.com.

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:10:54 AM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 08:03, Quentin Anciaux  > a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 07:36, Alan Grayson > > a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 11:25:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux 
>>> wrote:



 Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 01:24, Alan Grayson  a 
 écrit :

>
>
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 4:13:03 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 23:36, Alan Grayson  a 
>> écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux 
>>> wrote:



 Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:54, Alan Grayson  
 a écrit :

>
>
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 2:22:46 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:15, Alan Grayson  
>> a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 1:17:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin 
>>> Anciaux wrote:



 Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 16:43, Alan Grayson <
 agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

>
>
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 6:59:11 AM UTC-7, Bruno 
> Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson  
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno 
>> Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip 
>>> Thrift wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan 
 Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip 
> Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan 
>> Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip 
>>> Thrift wrote:



 On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, 
 Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>  
> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It 
> doesn't mean THIS world doesn't exist, or somehow 
> disappears in the process 
> of measurement. AG 
>


 That's nice.

 @philipthrift 

>>>
>>> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement 
>>> is done in this world, it splits into two worlds, each with 
>>> one of the 
>>> possible measurements. I see only one world being created, 
>>> with this world 
>>> remaining intact, and then comes the second measurement, 
>>> with its opposite 
>>> occurring in another world, or perhaps in the same world 
>>> created by the 
>>> first measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds 
>>> created is N, or 
>>> less. Isn't this what the MWI means? AG 
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible 
>> outcomes: O1 and O2.
>> There are not two measurements M1 and M2.
>>
>> Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not 
>> assigned "this" and the other assigned "that", They have 
>> equal status in 
>> MWI reality. One is not privileged over the other in any way.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I 
> wrote, which is pretty simple. AG
>


 What you wrote has* nothing to do with MWI*. You created 
 something different from MWI (in the Carroll sense).
 But's OK to have 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 08:03, Quentin Anciaux  a
écrit :

>
>
> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 07:36, Alan Grayson  a
> écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 11:25:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 01:24, Alan Grayson  a
>>> écrit :
>>>


 On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 4:13:03 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux
 wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 23:36, Alan Grayson  a
> écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:54, Alan Grayson  a
>>> écrit :
>>>


 On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 2:22:46 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux
 wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:15, Alan Grayson 
> a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 1:17:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin
>> Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 16:43, Alan Grayson 
>>> a écrit :
>>>


 On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 6:59:11 AM UTC-7, Bruno
 Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno
> Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip
>> Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan
>>> Grayson wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip
 Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan
> Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip
>> Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan
>>> Grayson wrote:


 I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It
 doesn't mean THIS world doesn't exist, or somehow 
 disappears in the process
 of measurement. AG

>>>
>>>
>>> That's nice.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement
>> is done in this world, it splits into two worlds, each with 
>> one of the
>> possible measurements. I see only one world being created, 
>> with this world
>> remaining intact, and then comes the second measurement, 
>> with its opposite
>> occurring in another world, or perhaps in the same world 
>> created by the
>> first measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds 
>> created is N, or
>> less. Isn't this what the MWI means? AG
>>
>
>
>
> There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible
> outcomes: O1 and O2.
> There are not two measurements M1 and M2.
>
> Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not
> assigned "this" and the other assigned "that", They have 
> equal status in
> MWI reality. One is not privileged over the other in any way.
>
> @philipthrift
>

 This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I
 wrote, which is pretty simple. AG

>>>
>>>
>>> What you wrote has* nothing to do with MWI*. You created
>>> something different from MWI (in the Carroll sense).
>>> But's OK to have your own interpretation.
>>>
>>> It's *your own "interpretation"*, not MWI.  Publish it and
>>> call it something else.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> I suppose I'm just following Tegmark; everything that CAN

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 07:36, Alan Grayson  a
écrit :

>
>
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 11:25:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 01:24, Alan Grayson  a
>> écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 4:13:03 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



 Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 23:36, Alan Grayson  a
 écrit :

>
>
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:54, Alan Grayson  a
>> écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 2:22:46 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux
>>> wrote:



 Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:15, Alan Grayson 
 a écrit :

>
>
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 1:17:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 16:43, Alan Grayson 
>> a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 6:59:11 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal
>>> wrote:


 On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson 
 wrote:



 On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal
 wrote:
>
>
> On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip
> Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan
>> Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip
>>> Thrift wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan
 Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip
> Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan
>> Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It
>>> doesn't mean THIS world doesn't exist, or somehow 
>>> disappears in the process
>>> of measurement. AG
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's nice.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement
> is done in this world, it splits into two worlds, each with 
> one of the
> possible measurements. I see only one world being created, 
> with this world
> remaining intact, and then comes the second measurement, with 
> its opposite
> occurring in another world, or perhaps in the same world 
> created by the
> first measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds 
> created is N, or
> less. Isn't this what the MWI means? AG
>



 There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible
 outcomes: O1 and O2.
 There are not two measurements M1 and M2.

 Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not
 assigned "this" and the other assigned "that", They have equal 
 status in
 MWI reality. One is not privileged over the other in any way.

 @philipthrift

>>>
>>> This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I
>>> wrote, which is pretty simple. AG
>>>
>>
>>
>> What you wrote has* nothing to do with MWI*. You created
>> something different from MWI (in the Carroll sense).
>> But's OK to have your own interpretation.
>>
>> It's *your own "interpretation"*, not MWI.  Publish it and
>> call it something else.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> I suppose I'm just following Tegmark; everything that CAN
> happen, MUST happen.  So, when an observer measures UP (or DN) in 
> THIS
> world, another world comes into existence wherein an observer 
> MUST measure
> DN (or 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 11:36:40 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 11:25:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 01:24, Alan Grayson  a 
>> écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 4:13:03 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



 Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 23:36, Alan Grayson  a 
 écrit :

>
>
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:54, Alan Grayson  a 
>> écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 2:22:46 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux 
>>> wrote:



 Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:15, Alan Grayson  
 a écrit :

>
>
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 1:17:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 16:43, Alan Grayson  
>> a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 6:59:11 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal 
>>> wrote:


 On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson  
 wrote:



 On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal 
 wrote:
>
>
> On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson  
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip 
> Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan 
>> Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip 
>>> Thrift wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan 
 Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip 
> Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan 
>> Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>  
>>> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It 
>>> doesn't mean THIS world doesn't exist, or somehow 
>>> disappears in the process 
>>> of measurement. AG 
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's nice.
>>
>> @philipthrift 
>>
>
> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement 
> is done in this world, it splits into two worlds, each with 
> one of the 
> possible measurements. I see only one world being created, 
> with this world 
> remaining intact, and then comes the second measurement, with 
> its opposite 
> occurring in another world, or perhaps in the same world 
> created by the 
> first measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds 
> created is N, or 
> less. Isn't this what the MWI means? AG 
>



 There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible 
 outcomes: O1 and O2.
 There are not two measurements M1 and M2.

 Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not 
 assigned "this" and the other assigned "that", They have equal 
 status in 
 MWI reality. One is not privileged over the other in any way.

 @philipthrift

>>>
>>> This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I 
>>> wrote, which is pretty simple. AG
>>>
>>
>>
>> What you wrote has* nothing to do with MWI*. You created 
>> something different from MWI (in the Carroll sense).
>> But's OK to have your own interpretation. 
>>
>> It's *your own "interpretation"*, not MWI.  Publish it and 
>> call it something else.
>>
>> @philipthrift 
>>
>
> I suppose I'm just following Tegmark; everything that CAN 
> happen, MUST happen.  So, when an observer measures UP (or DN) in 
> THIS 
> world, another world comes into existence wherein an 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 11:25:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 01:24, Alan Grayson  > a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 4:13:03 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 23:36, Alan Grayson  a 
>>> écrit :
>>>


 On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:54, Alan Grayson  a 
> écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 2:22:46 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:15, Alan Grayson  a 
>>> écrit :
>>>


 On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 1:17:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 16:43, Alan Grayson  
> a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 6:59:11 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal 
>>> wrote:


 On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson  
 wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip 
>> Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan 
>>> Grayson wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip 
 Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan 
> Grayson wrote:
>>
>>  
>> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't 
>> mean THIS world doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the 
>> process of 
>> measurement. AG 
>>
>
>
> That's nice.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

 Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement is 
 done in this world, it splits into two worlds, each with one 
 of the 
 possible measurements. I see only one world being created, 
 with this world 
 remaining intact, and then comes the second measurement, with 
 its opposite 
 occurring in another world, or perhaps in the same world 
 created by the 
 first measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds 
 created is N, or 
 less. Isn't this what the MWI means? AG 

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible 
>>> outcomes: O1 and O2.
>>> There are not two measurements M1 and M2.
>>>
>>> Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not 
>>> assigned "this" and the other assigned "that", They have equal 
>>> status in 
>>> MWI reality. One is not privileged over the other in any way.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I 
>> wrote, which is pretty simple. AG
>>
>
>
> What you wrote has* nothing to do with MWI*. You created 
> something different from MWI (in the Carroll sense).
> But's OK to have your own interpretation. 
>
> It's *your own "interpretation"*, not MWI.  Publish it and 
> call it something else.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

 I suppose I'm just following Tegmark; everything that CAN 
 happen, MUST happen.  So, when an observer measures UP (or DN) in 
 THIS 
 world, another world comes into existence wherein an observer MUST 
 measure 
 DN (or UP). From this I get N or less worlds for N trials where 
 the results 
 of measurements are binary, such as spin. Maybe not precisely MWI, 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 01:24, Alan Grayson  a
écrit :

>
>
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 4:13:03 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 23:36, Alan Grayson  a
>> écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



 Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:54, Alan Grayson  a
 écrit :

>
>
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 2:22:46 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:15, Alan Grayson  a
>> écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 1:17:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux
>>> wrote:



 Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 16:43, Alan Grayson 
 a écrit :

>
>
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 6:59:11 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift
>>> wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip
> Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan
>> Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip
>>> Thrift wrote:



 On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan
 Grayson wrote:
>
>
> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't
> mean THIS world doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the 
> process of
> measurement. AG
>


 That's nice.

 @philipthrift

>>>
>>> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement is
>>> done in this world, it splits into two worlds, each with one of 
>>> the
>>> possible measurements. I see only one world being created, with 
>>> this world
>>> remaining intact, and then comes the second measurement, with 
>>> its opposite
>>> occurring in another world, or perhaps in the same world 
>>> created by the
>>> first measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds 
>>> created is N, or
>>> less. Isn't this what the MWI means? AG
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible
>> outcomes: O1 and O2.
>> There are not two measurements M1 and M2.
>>
>> Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not
>> assigned "this" and the other assigned "that", They have equal 
>> status in
>> MWI reality. One is not privileged over the other in any way.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I wrote,
> which is pretty simple. AG
>


 What you wrote has* nothing to do with MWI*. You created
 something different from MWI (in the Carroll sense).
 But's OK to have your own interpretation.

 It's *your own "interpretation"*, not MWI.  Publish it and
 call it something else.

 @philipthrift

>>>
>>> I suppose I'm just following Tegmark; everything that CAN
>>> happen, MUST happen.  So, when an observer measures UP (or DN) in 
>>> THIS
>>> world, another world comes into existence wherein an observer MUST 
>>> measure
>>> DN (or UP). From this I get N or less worlds for N trials where the 
>>> results
>>> of measurements are binary, such as spin. Maybe not precisely MWI, 
>>> but
>>> definitely less stupid -- but still egregiously stupid. How could 
>>> MWI be
>>> remotely correctly if it alleges THIS world splits when it's never
>>> observed?
>>>
>>>
>>> Everett explains this entirely in his long 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 4:13:03 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 23:36, Alan Grayson  > a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:54, Alan Grayson  a 
>>> écrit :
>>>


 On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 2:22:46 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:15, Alan Grayson  a 
> écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 1:17:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 16:43, Alan Grayson  a 
>>> écrit :
>>>


 On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 6:59:11 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal 
 wrote:
>
>
> On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson  
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson  
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson 
>>> wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip 
>> Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan 
>>> Grayson wrote:

  
 I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't 
 mean THIS world doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the 
 process of 
 measurement. AG 

>>>
>>>
>>> That's nice.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift 
>>>
>>
>> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement is 
>> done in this world, it splits into two worlds, each with one of 
>> the 
>> possible measurements. I see only one world being created, with 
>> this world 
>> remaining intact, and then comes the second measurement, with 
>> its opposite 
>> occurring in another world, or perhaps in the same world created 
>> by the 
>> first measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds created 
>> is N, or 
>> less. Isn't this what the MWI means? AG 
>>
>
>
>
> There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible 
> outcomes: O1 and O2.
> There are not two measurements M1 and M2.
>
> Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not 
> assigned "this" and the other assigned "that", They have equal 
> status in 
> MWI reality. One is not privileged over the other in any way.
>
> @philipthrift
>

 This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I wrote, 
 which is pretty simple. AG

>>>
>>>
>>> What you wrote has* nothing to do with MWI*. You created 
>>> something different from MWI (in the Carroll sense).
>>> But's OK to have your own interpretation. 
>>>
>>> It's *your own "interpretation"*, not MWI.  Publish it and call 
>>> it something else.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift 
>>>
>>
>> I suppose I'm just following Tegmark; everything that CAN happen, 
>> MUST happen.  So, when an observer measures UP (or DN) in THIS 
>> world, 
>> another world comes into existence wherein an observer MUST measure 
>> DN (or 
>> UP). From this I get N or less worlds for N trials where the results 
>> of 
>> measurements are binary, such as spin. Maybe not precisely MWI, but 
>> definitely less stupid -- but still egregiously stupid. How could 
>> MWI be 
>> remotely correctly if it alleges THIS world splits when it's never 
>> observed? 
>>
>>
>> Everett explains this entirely in his long text. The observer 
>> cannot feel the split, nor observe it directly. But if QM (without 
>> collapse) is correct, it is up to the Uni-World to provide 
>> 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 23:36, Alan Grayson  a
écrit :

>
>
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:54, Alan Grayson  a
>> écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 2:22:46 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



 Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:15, Alan Grayson  a
 écrit :

>
>
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 1:17:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 16:43, Alan Grayson  a
>> écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 6:59:11 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal
>>> wrote:


 On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson  wrote:



 On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal
 wrote:
>
>
> On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift
>>> wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip
> Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan
>> Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't
>>> mean THIS world doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the 
>>> process of
>>> measurement. AG
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's nice.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement is
> done in this world, it splits into two worlds, each with one of 
> the
> possible measurements. I see only one world being created, with 
> this world
> remaining intact, and then comes the second measurement, with its 
> opposite
> occurring in another world, or perhaps in the same world created 
> by the
> first measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds created 
> is N, or
> less. Isn't this what the MWI means? AG
>



 There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible
 outcomes: O1 and O2.
 There are not two measurements M1 and M2.

 Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not
 assigned "this" and the other assigned "that", They have equal 
 status in
 MWI reality. One is not privileged over the other in any way.

 @philipthrift

>>>
>>> This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I wrote,
>>> which is pretty simple. AG
>>>
>>
>>
>> What you wrote has* nothing to do with MWI*. You created
>> something different from MWI (in the Carroll sense).
>> But's OK to have your own interpretation.
>>
>> It's *your own "interpretation"*, not MWI.  Publish it and call
>> it something else.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> I suppose I'm just following Tegmark; everything that CAN happen,
> MUST happen.  So, when an observer measures UP (or DN) in THIS world,
> another world comes into existence wherein an observer MUST measure 
> DN (or
> UP). From this I get N or less worlds for N trials where the results 
> of
> measurements are binary, such as spin. Maybe not precisely MWI, but
> definitely less stupid -- but still egregiously stupid. How could MWI 
> be
> remotely correctly if it alleges THIS world splits when it's never
> observed?
>
>
> Everett explains this entirely in his long text. The observer
> cannot feel the split, nor observe it directly. But if QM (without
> collapse) is correct, it is up to the Uni-World to provide 
> explanation of
> how “nature” makes some terms in the superposition disappear.
>
> Also, the MW is also a consequence of Descartes (mechanism) +
> Turing-Church-Post-Kleene (i.e. the discovery of the computer … in the
> elementary arithmetical reality).
>

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 3:07:07 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:54, Alan Grayson  > a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 2:22:46 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:15, Alan Grayson  a 
>>> écrit :
>>>


 On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 1:17:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 16:43, Alan Grayson  a 
> écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 6:59:11 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal 
>>> wrote:


 On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson  wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson 
>>> wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan 
> Grayson wrote:
>>
>>  
>> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't 
>> mean THIS world doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the 
>> process of 
>> measurement. AG 
>>
>
>
> That's nice.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

 Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement is 
 done in this world, it splits into two worlds, each with one of 
 the 
 possible measurements. I see only one world being created, with 
 this world 
 remaining intact, and then comes the second measurement, with its 
 opposite 
 occurring in another world, or perhaps in the same world created 
 by the 
 first measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds created 
 is N, or 
 less. Isn't this what the MWI means? AG 

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible 
>>> outcomes: O1 and O2.
>>> There are not two measurements M1 and M2.
>>>
>>> Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not 
>>> assigned "this" and the other assigned "that", They have equal 
>>> status in 
>>> MWI reality. One is not privileged over the other in any way.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I wrote, 
>> which is pretty simple. AG
>>
>
>
> What you wrote has* nothing to do with MWI*. You created 
> something different from MWI (in the Carroll sense).
> But's OK to have your own interpretation. 
>
> It's *your own "interpretation"*, not MWI.  Publish it and call 
> it something else.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

 I suppose I'm just following Tegmark; everything that CAN happen, 
 MUST happen.  So, when an observer measures UP (or DN) in THIS world, 
 another world comes into existence wherein an observer MUST measure DN 
 (or 
 UP). From this I get N or less worlds for N trials where the results 
 of 
 measurements are binary, such as spin. Maybe not precisely MWI, but 
 definitely less stupid -- but still egregiously stupid. How could MWI 
 be 
 remotely correctly if it alleges THIS world splits when it's never 
 observed? 


 Everett explains this entirely in his long text. The observer 
 cannot feel the split, nor observe it directly. But if QM (without 
 collapse) is correct, it is up to the Uni-World to provide explanation 
 of 
 how “nature” makes some terms in the superposition disappear.

 Also, the MW is also a consequence of Descartes (mechanism) + 
 Turing-Church-Post-Kleene (i.e. the discovery of the computer … in the 
 elementary arithmetical reality). 



 But now you say that for Everett there's no such thing as THIS 
 world. All this stuff, including Bruno's BS, is so profoundly dumb, I 
 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:54, Alan Grayson  a
écrit :

>
>
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 2:22:46 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:15, Alan Grayson  a
>> écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 1:17:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



 Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 16:43, Alan Grayson  a
 écrit :

>
>
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 6:59:11 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift
>>> wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift
>>> wrote:



 On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan
 Grayson wrote:
>
>
> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't mean
> THIS world doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the process of
> measurement. AG
>


 That's nice.

 @philipthrift

>>>
>>> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement is done
>>> in this world, it splits into two worlds, each with one of the 
>>> possible
>>> measurements. I see only one world being created, with this world 
>>> remaining
>>> intact, and then comes the second measurement, with its opposite 
>>> occurring
>>> in another world, or perhaps in the same world created by the first
>>> measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds created is N, or 
>>> less.
>>> Isn't this what the MWI means? AG
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible
>> outcomes: O1 and O2.
>> There are not two measurements M1 and M2.
>>
>> Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not assigned
>> "this" and the other assigned "that", They have equal status in MWI
>> reality. One is not privileged over the other in any way.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I wrote,
> which is pretty simple. AG
>


 What you wrote has* nothing to do with MWI*. You created something
 different from MWI (in the Carroll sense).
 But's OK to have your own interpretation.

 It's *your own "interpretation"*, not MWI.  Publish it and call it
 something else.

 @philipthrift

>>>
>>> I suppose I'm just following Tegmark; everything that CAN happen,
>>> MUST happen.  So, when an observer measures UP (or DN) in THIS world,
>>> another world comes into existence wherein an observer MUST measure DN 
>>> (or
>>> UP). From this I get N or less worlds for N trials where the results of
>>> measurements are binary, such as spin. Maybe not precisely MWI, but
>>> definitely less stupid -- but still egregiously stupid. How could MWI be
>>> remotely correctly if it alleges THIS world splits when it's never
>>> observed?
>>>
>>>
>>> Everett explains this entirely in his long text. The observer cannot
>>> feel the split, nor observe it directly. But if QM (without collapse) is
>>> correct, it is up to the Uni-World to provide explanation of how 
>>> “nature”
>>> makes some terms in the superposition disappear.
>>>
>>> Also, the MW is also a consequence of Descartes (mechanism) +
>>> Turing-Church-Post-Kleene (i.e. the discovery of the computer … in the
>>> elementary arithmetical reality).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But now you say that for Everett there's no such thing as THIS
>>> world. All this stuff, including Bruno's BS, is so profoundly dumb, I 
>>> can't
>>> believe we're even discussing it! Was it Brent on another thread who
>>> claimed many physicists have become cultists? Whoever made that claim
>>> qualifies for sanity. AG
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you saying that the brain is not Turing emulable? Or what? All
>>> what I say follows from this “intuitively”, but is also 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 2:54:09 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 2:22:46 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:15, Alan Grayson  a 
>> écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 1:17:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



 Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 16:43, Alan Grayson  a 
 écrit :

>
>
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 6:59:11 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift 
>>> wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift 
>>> wrote:



 On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan 
 Grayson wrote:
>
>  
> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't mean 
> THIS world doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the process of 
> measurement. AG 
>


 That's nice.

 @philipthrift 

>>>
>>> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement is done 
>>> in this world, it splits into two worlds, each with one of the 
>>> possible 
>>> measurements. I see only one world being created, with this world 
>>> remaining 
>>> intact, and then comes the second measurement, with its opposite 
>>> occurring 
>>> in another world, or perhaps in the same world created by the first 
>>> measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds created is N, or 
>>> less. 
>>> Isn't this what the MWI means? AG 
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible 
>> outcomes: O1 and O2.
>> There are not two measurements M1 and M2.
>>
>> Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not assigned 
>> "this" and the other assigned "that", They have equal status in MWI 
>> reality. One is not privileged over the other in any way.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I wrote, 
> which is pretty simple. AG
>


 What you wrote has* nothing to do with MWI*. You created something 
 different from MWI (in the Carroll sense).
 But's OK to have your own interpretation. 

 It's *your own "interpretation"*, not MWI.  Publish it and call it 
 something else.

 @philipthrift 

>>>
>>> I suppose I'm just following Tegmark; everything that CAN happen, 
>>> MUST happen.  So, when an observer measures UP (or DN) in THIS world, 
>>> another world comes into existence wherein an observer MUST measure DN 
>>> (or 
>>> UP). From this I get N or less worlds for N trials where the results of 
>>> measurements are binary, such as spin. Maybe not precisely MWI, but 
>>> definitely less stupid -- but still egregiously stupid. How could MWI 
>>> be 
>>> remotely correctly if it alleges THIS world splits when it's never 
>>> observed? 
>>>
>>>
>>> Everett explains this entirely in his long text. The observer cannot 
>>> feel the split, nor observe it directly. But if QM (without collapse) 
>>> is 
>>> correct, it is up to the Uni-World to provide explanation of how 
>>> “nature” 
>>> makes some terms in the superposition disappear.
>>>
>>> Also, the MW is also a consequence of Descartes (mechanism) + 
>>> Turing-Church-Post-Kleene (i.e. the discovery of the computer … in the 
>>> elementary arithmetical reality). 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But now you say that for Everett there's no such thing as THIS 
>>> world. All this stuff, including Bruno's BS, is so profoundly dumb, I 
>>> can't 
>>> believe we're even discussing it! Was it Brent on another thread who 
>>> claimed many physicists have become cultists? Whoever made that claim 
>>> qualifies for sanity. AG
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you saying that the brain is not Turing 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 2:22:46 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:15, Alan Grayson  > a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 1:17:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 16:43, Alan Grayson  a 
>>> écrit :
>>>


 On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 6:59:11 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson 
>>> wrote:

  
 I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't mean 
 THIS world doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the process of 
 measurement. AG 

>>>
>>>
>>> That's nice.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift 
>>>
>>
>> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement is done 
>> in this world, it splits into two worlds, each with one of the 
>> possible 
>> measurements. I see only one world being created, with this world 
>> remaining 
>> intact, and then comes the second measurement, with its opposite 
>> occurring 
>> in another world, or perhaps in the same world created by the first 
>> measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds created is N, or 
>> less. 
>> Isn't this what the MWI means? AG 
>>
>
>
>
> There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible outcomes: 
> O1 and O2.
> There are not two measurements M1 and M2.
>
> Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not assigned 
> "this" and the other assigned "that", They have equal status in MWI 
> reality. One is not privileged over the other in any way.
>
> @philipthrift
>

 This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I wrote, 
 which is pretty simple. AG

>>>
>>>
>>> What you wrote has* nothing to do with MWI*. You created something 
>>> different from MWI (in the Carroll sense).
>>> But's OK to have your own interpretation. 
>>>
>>> It's *your own "interpretation"*, not MWI.  Publish it and call it 
>>> something else.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift 
>>>
>>
>> I suppose I'm just following Tegmark; everything that CAN happen, 
>> MUST happen.  So, when an observer measures UP (or DN) in THIS world, 
>> another world comes into existence wherein an observer MUST measure DN 
>> (or 
>> UP). From this I get N or less worlds for N trials where the results of 
>> measurements are binary, such as spin. Maybe not precisely MWI, but 
>> definitely less stupid -- but still egregiously stupid. How could MWI be 
>> remotely correctly if it alleges THIS world splits when it's never 
>> observed? 
>>
>>
>> Everett explains this entirely in his long text. The observer cannot 
>> feel the split, nor observe it directly. But if QM (without collapse) is 
>> correct, it is up to the Uni-World to provide explanation of how 
>> “nature” 
>> makes some terms in the superposition disappear.
>>
>> Also, the MW is also a consequence of Descartes (mechanism) + 
>> Turing-Church-Post-Kleene (i.e. the discovery of the computer … in the 
>> elementary arithmetical reality). 
>>
>>
>>
>> But now you say that for Everett there's no such thing as THIS world. 
>> All this stuff, including Bruno's BS, is so profoundly dumb, I can't 
>> believe we're even discussing it! Was it Brent on another thread who 
>> claimed many physicists have become cultists? Whoever made that claim 
>> qualifies for sanity. AG
>>
>>
>>
>> Are you saying that the brain is not Turing emulable? Or what? All 
>> what I say follows from this “intuitively”, but is also recovered by the 
>> Platonician’s definition used in epistemology, when modelling  “rational 
>> belief” by “provability”, which is suggested by incompleteness. I do 
>> know 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 22:15, Alan Grayson  a
écrit :

>
>
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 1:17:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 16:43, Alan Grayson  a
>> écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 6:59:11 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson  wrote:



 On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift
>>> wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't mean
>>> THIS world doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the process of
>>> measurement. AG
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's nice.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement is done
> in this world, it splits into two worlds, each with one of the 
> possible
> measurements. I see only one world being created, with this world 
> remaining
> intact, and then comes the second measurement, with its opposite 
> occurring
> in another world, or perhaps in the same world created by the first
> measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds created is N, or 
> less.
> Isn't this what the MWI means? AG
>



 There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible outcomes:
 O1 and O2.
 There are not two measurements M1 and M2.

 Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not assigned
 "this" and the other assigned "that", They have equal status in MWI
 reality. One is not privileged over the other in any way.

 @philipthrift

>>>
>>> This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I wrote, which
>>> is pretty simple. AG
>>>
>>
>>
>> What you wrote has* nothing to do with MWI*. You created something
>> different from MWI (in the Carroll sense).
>> But's OK to have your own interpretation.
>>
>> It's *your own "interpretation"*, not MWI.  Publish it and call it
>> something else.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> I suppose I'm just following Tegmark; everything that CAN happen, MUST
> happen.  So, when an observer measures UP (or DN) in THIS world, another
> world comes into existence wherein an observer MUST measure DN (or UP).
> From this I get N or less worlds for N trials where the results of
> measurements are binary, such as spin. Maybe not precisely MWI, but
> definitely less stupid -- but still egregiously stupid. How could MWI be
> remotely correctly if it alleges THIS world splits when it's never
> observed?
>
>
> Everett explains this entirely in his long text. The observer cannot
> feel the split, nor observe it directly. But if QM (without collapse) is
> correct, it is up to the Uni-World to provide explanation of how “nature”
> makes some terms in the superposition disappear.
>
> Also, the MW is also a consequence of Descartes (mechanism) +
> Turing-Church-Post-Kleene (i.e. the discovery of the computer … in the
> elementary arithmetical reality).
>
>
>
> But now you say that for Everett there's no such thing as THIS world.
> All this stuff, including Bruno's BS, is so profoundly dumb, I can't
> believe we're even discussing it! Was it Brent on another thread who
> claimed many physicists have become cultists? Whoever made that claim
> qualifies for sanity. AG
>
>
>
> Are you saying that the brain is not Turing emulable? Or what? All
> what I say follows from this “intuitively”, but is also recovered by the
> Platonician’s definition used in epistemology, when modelling  “rational
> belief” by “provability”, which is suggested by incompleteness. I do know
> philosophers who are not convinced, by I don’t do philosophy, I prefer to
> show a theory and its testability, and indeed I show exactly how to test
> experimentally between Mechanism and (Weak) Materialism (physicalism), and
> I show that quantum mechanics confirms 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 1:17:59 PM UTC-7, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 16:43, Alan Grayson  > a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 6:59:11 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson  wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson 
> wrote:
>>
>>  
>> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't mean 
>> THIS world doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the process of 
>> measurement. AG 
>>
>
>
> That's nice.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

 Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement is done in 
 this world, it splits into two worlds, each with one of the possible 
 measurements. I see only one world being created, with this world 
 remaining 
 intact, and then comes the second measurement, with its opposite 
 occurring 
 in another world, or perhaps in the same world created by the first 
 measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds created is N, or 
 less. 
 Isn't this what the MWI means? AG 

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible outcomes: 
>>> O1 and O2.
>>> There are not two measurements M1 and M2.
>>>
>>> Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not assigned 
>>> "this" and the other assigned "that", They have equal status in MWI 
>>> reality. One is not privileged over the other in any way.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I wrote, which 
>> is pretty simple. AG
>>
>
>
> What you wrote has* nothing to do with MWI*. You created something 
> different from MWI (in the Carroll sense).
> But's OK to have your own interpretation. 
>
> It's *your own "interpretation"*, not MWI.  Publish it and call it 
> something else.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

 I suppose I'm just following Tegmark; everything that CAN happen, MUST 
 happen.  So, when an observer measures UP (or DN) in THIS world, another 
 world comes into existence wherein an observer MUST measure DN (or UP). 
 From this I get N or less worlds for N trials where the results of 
 measurements are binary, such as spin. Maybe not precisely MWI, but 
 definitely less stupid -- but still egregiously stupid. How could MWI be 
 remotely correctly if it alleges THIS world splits when it's never 
 observed? 


 Everett explains this entirely in his long text. The observer cannot 
 feel the split, nor observe it directly. But if QM (without collapse) is 
 correct, it is up to the Uni-World to provide explanation of how “nature” 
 makes some terms in the superposition disappear.

 Also, the MW is also a consequence of Descartes (mechanism) + 
 Turing-Church-Post-Kleene (i.e. the discovery of the computer … in the 
 elementary arithmetical reality). 



 But now you say that for Everett there's no such thing as THIS world. 
 All this stuff, including Bruno's BS, is so profoundly dumb, I can't 
 believe we're even discussing it! Was it Brent on another thread who 
 claimed many physicists have become cultists? Whoever made that claim 
 qualifies for sanity. AG



 Are you saying that the brain is not Turing emulable? Or what? All what 
 I say follows from this “intuitively”, but is also recovered by the 
 Platonician’s definition used in epistemology, when modelling  “rational 
 belief” by “provability”, which is suggested by incompleteness. I do know 
 philosophers who are not convinced, by I don’t do philosophy, I prefer to 
 show a theory and its testability, and indeed I show exactly how to test 
 experimentally between Mechanism and (Weak) Materialism (physicalism), and 
 I show that quantum mechanics confirms Mechanism.

 I am not the guy who comes with a new theory. I am just showing that 
 the old and venerable Mechanist theory (in biology, psychology) is 
 experimentally 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 16:43, Alan Grayson  a
écrit :

>
>
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 6:59:11 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift
>>> wrote:



 On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson
 wrote:
>
>
> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't mean
> THIS world doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the process of
> measurement. AG
>


 That's nice.

 @philipthrift

>>>
>>> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement is done in
>>> this world, it splits into two worlds, each with one of the possible
>>> measurements. I see only one world being created, with this world 
>>> remaining
>>> intact, and then comes the second measurement, with its opposite 
>>> occurring
>>> in another world, or perhaps in the same world created by the first
>>> measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds created is N, or 
>>> less.
>>> Isn't this what the MWI means? AG
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible outcomes: O1
>> and O2.
>> There are not two measurements M1 and M2.
>>
>> Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not assigned
>> "this" and the other assigned "that", They have equal status in MWI
>> reality. One is not privileged over the other in any way.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I wrote, which
> is pretty simple. AG
>


 What you wrote has* nothing to do with MWI*. You created something
 different from MWI (in the Carroll sense).
 But's OK to have your own interpretation.

 It's *your own "interpretation"*, not MWI.  Publish it and call it
 something else.

 @philipthrift

>>>
>>> I suppose I'm just following Tegmark; everything that CAN happen, MUST
>>> happen.  So, when an observer measures UP (or DN) in THIS world, another
>>> world comes into existence wherein an observer MUST measure DN (or UP).
>>> From this I get N or less worlds for N trials where the results of
>>> measurements are binary, such as spin. Maybe not precisely MWI, but
>>> definitely less stupid -- but still egregiously stupid. How could MWI be
>>> remotely correctly if it alleges THIS world splits when it's never
>>> observed?
>>>
>>>
>>> Everett explains this entirely in his long text. The observer cannot
>>> feel the split, nor observe it directly. But if QM (without collapse) is
>>> correct, it is up to the Uni-World to provide explanation of how “nature”
>>> makes some terms in the superposition disappear.
>>>
>>> Also, the MW is also a consequence of Descartes (mechanism) +
>>> Turing-Church-Post-Kleene (i.e. the discovery of the computer … in the
>>> elementary arithmetical reality).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But now you say that for Everett there's no such thing as THIS world.
>>> All this stuff, including Bruno's BS, is so profoundly dumb, I can't
>>> believe we're even discussing it! Was it Brent on another thread who
>>> claimed many physicists have become cultists? Whoever made that claim
>>> qualifies for sanity. AG
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you saying that the brain is not Turing emulable? Or what? All what
>>> I say follows from this “intuitively”, but is also recovered by the
>>> Platonician’s definition used in epistemology, when modelling  “rational
>>> belief” by “provability”, which is suggested by incompleteness. I do know
>>> philosophers who are not convinced, by I don’t do philosophy, I prefer to
>>> show a theory and its testability, and indeed I show exactly how to test
>>> experimentally between Mechanism and (Weak) Materialism (physicalism), and
>>> I show that quantum mechanics confirms Mechanism.
>>>
>>> I am not the guy who comes with a new theory. I am just showing that the
>>> old and venerable Mechanist theory (in biology, psychology) is
>>> experimentally testable, and that QM without-collapse confirms it, like I
>>> show also that quantum logic confirms it.
>>>
>>> What is your take on the WM-duplication?
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>> PS if you could avoid the insults, and reason instead, that would be
>>> nice. Leave the 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 6:59:11 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson 
>>> wrote:

  
 I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't mean THIS 
 world doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the process of 
 measurement. 
 AG 

>>>
>>>
>>> That's nice.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift 
>>>
>>
>> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement is done in 
>> this world, it splits into two worlds, each with one of the possible 
>> measurements. I see only one world being created, with this world 
>> remaining 
>> intact, and then comes the second measurement, with its opposite 
>> occurring 
>> in another world, or perhaps in the same world created by the first 
>> measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds created is N, or 
>> less. 
>> Isn't this what the MWI means? AG 
>>
>
>
>
> There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible outcomes: O1 
> and O2.
> There are not two measurements M1 and M2.
>
> Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not assigned 
> "this" and the other assigned "that", They have equal status in MWI 
> reality. One is not privileged over the other in any way.
>
> @philipthrift
>

 This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I wrote, which is 
 pretty simple. AG

>>>
>>>
>>> What you wrote has* nothing to do with MWI*. You created something 
>>> different from MWI (in the Carroll sense).
>>> But's OK to have your own interpretation. 
>>>
>>> It's *your own "interpretation"*, not MWI.  Publish it and call it 
>>> something else.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift 
>>>
>>
>> I suppose I'm just following Tegmark; everything that CAN happen, MUST 
>> happen.  So, when an observer measures UP (or DN) in THIS world, another 
>> world comes into existence wherein an observer MUST measure DN (or UP). 
>> From this I get N or less worlds for N trials where the results of 
>> measurements are binary, such as spin. Maybe not precisely MWI, but 
>> definitely less stupid -- but still egregiously stupid. How could MWI be 
>> remotely correctly if it alleges THIS world splits when it's never 
>> observed? 
>>
>>
>> Everett explains this entirely in his long text. The observer cannot feel 
>> the split, nor observe it directly. But if QM (without collapse) is 
>> correct, it is up to the Uni-World to provide explanation of how “nature” 
>> makes some terms in the superposition disappear.
>>
>> Also, the MW is also a consequence of Descartes (mechanism) + 
>> Turing-Church-Post-Kleene (i.e. the discovery of the computer … in the 
>> elementary arithmetical reality). 
>>
>>
>>
>> But now you say that for Everett there's no such thing as THIS world. All 
>> this stuff, including Bruno's BS, is so profoundly dumb, I can't believe 
>> we're even discussing it! Was it Brent on another thread who claimed many 
>> physicists have become cultists? Whoever made that claim qualifies for 
>> sanity. AG
>>
>>
>>
>> Are you saying that the brain is not Turing emulable? Or what? All what I 
>> say follows from this “intuitively”, but is also recovered by the 
>> Platonician’s definition used in epistemology, when modelling  “rational 
>> belief” by “provability”, which is suggested by incompleteness. I do know 
>> philosophers who are not convinced, by I don’t do philosophy, I prefer to 
>> show a theory and its testability, and indeed I show exactly how to test 
>> experimentally between Mechanism and (Weak) Materialism (physicalism), and 
>> I show that quantum mechanics confirms Mechanism.
>>
>> I am not the guy who comes with a new theory. I am just showing that the 
>> old and venerable Mechanist theory (in biology, psychology) is 
>> experimentally testable, and that QM without-collapse confirms it, like I 
>> show also that quantum logic confirms it.
>>
>> What is your take on the WM-duplication? 
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>> PS if you could avoid the insults, and reason instead, that would be 
>> nice. Leave the insults to those who have no arguments.
>>
>
> As I see it, you have no arguments for MW except hand-waving. Do unicorns 
> exist because they 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 18 Feb 2020, at 07:28, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>  
>> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't mean THIS world 
>> doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the process of measurement. AG 
>> 
>> 
>> That's nice.
>> 
>> @philipthrift 
>> 
>> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement is done in this 
>> world, it splits into two worlds, each with one of the possible 
>> measurements. I see only one world being created, with this world remaining 
>> intact, and then comes the second measurement, with its opposite occurring 
>> in another world, or perhaps in the same world created by the first 
>> measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds created is N, or less. 
>> Isn't this what the MWI means? AG 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible outcomes: O1 and O2.
>> There are not two measurements M1 and M2.
>> 
>> Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not assigned "this" and 
>> the other assigned "that", They have equal status in MWI reality. One is not 
>> privileged over the other in any way.
>> 
>> @philipthrift
>> 
>> This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I wrote, which is 
>> pretty simple. AG
>> 
>> 
>> What you wrote has nothing to do with MWI. You created something different 
>> from MWI (in the Carroll sense).
>> But's OK to have your own interpretation. 
>> 
>> It's your own "interpretation", not MWI.  Publish it and call it something 
>> else.
>> 
>> @philipthrift 
>> 
>> I suppose I'm just following Tegmark; everything that CAN happen, MUST 
>> happen.  So, when an observer measures UP (or DN) in THIS world, another 
>> world comes into existence wherein an observer MUST measure DN (or UP). From 
>> this I get N or less worlds for N trials where the results of measurements 
>> are binary, such as spin. Maybe not precisely MWI, but definitely less 
>> stupid -- but still egregiously stupid. How could MWI be remotely correctly 
>> if it alleges THIS world splits when it's never observed?
> 
> Everett explains this entirely in his long text. The observer cannot feel the 
> split, nor observe it directly. But if QM (without collapse) is correct, it 
> is up to the Uni-World to provide explanation of how “nature” makes some 
> terms in the superposition disappear.
> 
> Also, the MW is also a consequence of Descartes (mechanism) + 
> Turing-Church-Post-Kleene (i.e. the discovery of the computer … in the 
> elementary arithmetical reality). 
> 
> 
> 
>> But now you say that for Everett there's no such thing as THIS world. All 
>> this stuff, including Bruno's BS, is so profoundly dumb, I can't believe 
>> we're even discussing it! Was it Brent on another thread who claimed many 
>> physicists have become cultists? Whoever made that claim qualifies for 
>> sanity. AG
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the brain is not Turing emulable? Or what? All what I say 
> follows from this “intuitively”, but is also recovered by the Platonician’s 
> definition used in epistemology, when modelling  “rational belief” by 
> “provability”, which is suggested by incompleteness. I do know philosophers 
> who are not convinced, by I don’t do philosophy, I prefer to show a theory 
> and its testability, and indeed I show exactly how to test experimentally 
> between Mechanism and (Weak) Materialism (physicalism), and I show that 
> quantum mechanics confirms Mechanism.
> 
> I am not the guy who comes with a new theory. I am just showing that the old 
> and venerable Mechanist theory (in biology, psychology) is experimentally 
> testable, and that QM without-collapse confirms it, like I show also that 
> quantum logic confirms it.
> 
> What is your take on the WM-duplication? 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> PS if you could avoid the insults, and reason instead, that would be nice. 
> Leave the insults to those who have no arguments.
> 
> As I see it, you have no arguments for MW except hand-waving. Do unicorns 
> exist because they can exist?

Exists in which sense? They certainly are fictive object. Unicorn does not 
exist, because by definition they belong to fairy tales. I am not sure what you 
try to convey, or perhaps to insinuate. “Hand waning” is a bit of an insult. 
Please quote the sentences that you disagree with, or that you don’t understand.

Or are you assimilating the true number relation with fiction? Then 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Philip Thrift]

On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 12:38:16 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>
> It's *your own "interpretation"*, not MWI.  Publish it and call it 
>> something else.
>>
>> @philipthrift 
>>
>
> LOL. I won't publish! There's more than enough confusion as is. No point 
> in increasing it! You're probably correct; it's my interpretation of MW, 
> probably not exactly what Everett had in mind.  But in the final analysis I 
> don't think it matters. MW is nonsense, however you define it. There's no 
> reason to believe that a horse which loses a race in this world, implies 
> another world in which it wins. AG
>

What you said above

"Have you considered forgetting about wf's and just use Dirac's Matrix 
Mechanics instead of the SWE? In MM there are no waves so no collapse to 
worry about. Why focus on collapse of the wf when you can use MM? AG"

is correct of course. This is well known - that there are several 
"interpretations" that are not in terms of Hilbert Space or wave function.


*Quantum Dynamics without the Wave Function*
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0610204

*The Form and Interpretation of the Decoherence Functional*
*A realist quantum theory based on the decoherence functional using the 
co-event interpretation of Quantum Measure Theory. The Sum-Over-Histories 
theory of quantum mechanics will provide the bedding for a 
Hilbert-space-free stochastic-like theory.*
https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/70797/1/Wilkes-H-2019-PhD-Thesis.pdf

@philipthrift


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/04f769a6-8ef2-44ba-afdc-28b8b9664edd%40googlegroups.com.

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 11:28:14 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson 
>>> wrote:

  
 I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't mean THIS 
 world doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the process of 
 measurement. 
 AG 

>>>
>>>
>>> That's nice.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift 
>>>
>>
>> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement is done in 
>> this world, it splits into two worlds, each with one of the possible 
>> measurements. I see only one world being created, with this world 
>> remaining 
>> intact, and then comes the second measurement, with its opposite 
>> occurring 
>> in another world, or perhaps in the same world created by the first 
>> measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds created is N, or 
>> less. 
>> Isn't this what the MWI means? AG 
>>
>
>
>
> There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible outcomes: O1 
> and O2.
> There are not two measurements M1 and M2.
>
> Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not assigned 
> "this" and the other assigned "that", They have equal status in MWI 
> reality. One is not privileged over the other in any way.
>
> @philipthrift
>

 This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I wrote, which is 
 pretty simple. AG

>>>
>>>
>>> What you wrote has* nothing to do with MWI*. You created something 
>>> different from MWI (in the Carroll sense).
>>> But's OK to have your own interpretation. 
>>>
>>> It's *your own "interpretation"*, not MWI.  Publish it and call it 
>>> something else.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift 
>>>
>>
>> I suppose I'm just following Tegmark; everything that CAN happen, MUST 
>> happen.  So, when an observer measures UP (or DN) in THIS world, another 
>> world comes into existence wherein an observer MUST measure DN (or UP). 
>> From this I get N or less worlds for N trials where the results of 
>> measurements are binary, such as spin. Maybe not precisely MWI, but 
>> definitely less stupid -- but still egregiously stupid. How could MWI be 
>> remotely correctly if it alleges THIS world splits when it's never 
>> observed? 
>>
>>
>> Everett explains this entirely in his long text. The observer cannot feel 
>> the split, nor observe it directly. But if QM (without collapse) is 
>> correct, it is up to the Uni-World to provide explanation of how “nature” 
>> makes some terms in the superposition disappear.
>>
>> Also, the MW is also a consequence of Descartes (mechanism) + 
>> Turing-Church-Post-Kleene (i.e. the discovery of the computer … in the 
>> elementary arithmetical reality). 
>>
>>
>>
>> But now you say that for Everett there's no such thing as THIS world. All 
>> this stuff, including Bruno's BS, is so profoundly dumb, I can't believe 
>> we're even discussing it! Was it Brent on another thread who claimed many 
>> physicists have become cultists? Whoever made that claim qualifies for 
>> sanity. AG
>>
>>
>>
>> Are you saying that the brain is not Turing emulable? Or what? All what I 
>> say follows from this “intuitively”, but is also recovered by the 
>> Platonician’s definition used in epistemology, when modelling  “rational 
>> belief” by “provability”, which is suggested by incompleteness. I do know 
>> philosophers who are not convinced, by I don’t do philosophy, I prefer to 
>> show a theory and its testability, and indeed I show exactly how to test 
>> experimentally between Mechanism and (Weak) Materialism (physicalism), and 
>> I show that quantum mechanics confirms Mechanism.
>>
>> I am not the guy who comes with a new theory. I am just showing that the 
>> old and venerable Mechanist theory (in biology, psychology) is 
>> experimentally testable, and that QM without-collapse confirms it, like I 
>> show also that quantum logic confirms it.
>>
>> What is your take on the WM-duplication? 
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>> PS if you could avoid the insults, and reason instead, that would be 
>> nice. Leave the insults to those who have no arguments.
>>
>
> As I see it, you have no arguments for MW except hand-waving. Do unicorns 
> exist because they can exist? If there are genetic codes which create 
> 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>  
>> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't mean THIS 
>> world doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the process of 
>> measurement. 
>> AG 
>>
>
>
> That's nice.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

 Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement is done in 
 this world, it splits into two worlds, each with one of the possible 
 measurements. I see only one world being created, with this world 
 remaining 
 intact, and then comes the second measurement, with its opposite occurring 
 in another world, or perhaps in the same world created by the first 
 measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds created is N, or less. 
 Isn't this what the MWI means? AG 

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible outcomes: O1 
>>> and O2.
>>> There are not two measurements M1 and M2.
>>>
>>> Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not assigned "this" 
>>> and the other assigned "that", They have equal status in MWI reality. One 
>>> is not privileged over the other in any way.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I wrote, which is 
>> pretty simple. AG
>>
>
>
> What you wrote has* nothing to do with MWI*. You created something 
> different from MWI (in the Carroll sense).
> But's OK to have your own interpretation. 
>
> It's *your own "interpretation"*, not MWI.  Publish it and call it 
> something else.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

LOL. I won't publish! There's more than enough confusion as is. No point in 
increasing it! You're probably correct; it's my interpretation of MW, 
probably not exactly what Everett had in mind.  But in the final analysis I 
don't think it matters. MW is nonsense, however you define it. There's no 
reason to believe that a horse which loses a race in this world, implies 
another world in which it wins. AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/647cbf1b-cc00-4159-9db1-c354246c56b5%40googlegroups.com.

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 6:21:47 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  
>>> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't mean THIS 
>>> world doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the process of 
>>> measurement. 
>>> AG 
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's nice.
>>
>> @philipthrift 
>>
>
> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement is done in 
> this world, it splits into two worlds, each with one of the possible 
> measurements. I see only one world being created, with this world 
> remaining 
> intact, and then comes the second measurement, with its opposite 
> occurring 
> in another world, or perhaps in the same world created by the first 
> measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds created is N, or less. 
> Isn't this what the MWI means? AG 
>



 There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible outcomes: O1 
 and O2.
 There are not two measurements M1 and M2.

 Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not assigned 
 "this" and the other assigned "that", They have equal status in MWI 
 reality. One is not privileged over the other in any way.

 @philipthrift

>>>
>>> This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I wrote, which is 
>>> pretty simple. AG
>>>
>>
>>
>> What you wrote has* nothing to do with MWI*. You created something 
>> different from MWI (in the Carroll sense).
>> But's OK to have your own interpretation. 
>>
>> It's *your own "interpretation"*, not MWI.  Publish it and call it 
>> something else.
>>
>> @philipthrift 
>>
>
> I suppose I'm just following Tegmark; everything that CAN happen, MUST 
> happen.  So, when an observer measures UP (or DN) in THIS world, another 
> world comes into existence wherein an observer MUST measure DN (or UP). 
> From this I get N or less worlds for N trials where the results of 
> measurements are binary, such as spin. Maybe not precisely MWI, but 
> definitely less stupid -- but still egregiously stupid. How could MWI be 
> remotely correctly if it alleges THIS world splits when it's never 
> observed? 
>
>
> Everett explains this entirely in his long text. The observer cannot feel 
> the split, nor observe it directly. But if QM (without collapse) is 
> correct, it is up to the Uni-World to provide explanation of how “nature” 
> makes some terms in the superposition disappear.
>
> Also, the MW is also a consequence of Descartes (mechanism) + 
> Turing-Church-Post-Kleene (i.e. the discovery of the computer … in the 
> elementary arithmetical reality). 
>
>
>
> But now you say that for Everett there's no such thing as THIS world. All 
> this stuff, including Bruno's BS, is so profoundly dumb, I can't believe 
> we're even discussing it! Was it Brent on another thread who claimed many 
> physicists have become cultists? Whoever made that claim qualifies for 
> sanity. AG
>
>
>
> Are you saying that the brain is not Turing emulable? Or what? All what I 
> say follows from this “intuitively”, but is also recovered by the 
> Platonician’s definition used in epistemology, when modelling  “rational 
> belief” by “provability”, which is suggested by incompleteness. I do know 
> philosophers who are not convinced, by I don’t do philosophy, I prefer to 
> show a theory and its testability, and indeed I show exactly how to test 
> experimentally between Mechanism and (Weak) Materialism (physicalism), and 
> I show that quantum mechanics confirms Mechanism.
>
> I am not the guy who comes with a new theory. I am just showing that the 
> old and venerable Mechanist theory (in biology, psychology) is 
> experimentally testable, and that QM without-collapse confirms it, like I 
> show also that quantum logic confirms it.
>
> What is your take on the WM-duplication? 
>
> Bruno
>
> PS if you could avoid the insults, and reason instead, that would be nice. 
> Leave the insults to those who have no arguments.
>

As I see it, you have no arguments for MW except hand-waving. Do unicorns 
exist because they can exist? If there are genetic codes which create 
unicorns, do they exist, somewhere? Well maybe, given enough time. I'll 
grant you that. But the horse which loses a race in this world, doesn't 
imply another world in which it wins. Why should it? This is the basic flaw 
in 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 16 Feb 2020, at 19:02, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/16/2020 5:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 14 Feb 2020, at 09:56, Alan Grayson >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
 Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I don't 
 understand his argument, no doubt my failing.
>>> 
>>> I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule has to 
>>> stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be derived from 
>>> the linear evolution.  Somehow a probability has to be introduced.  Once 
>>> there is a probability measure, then it can be argued via Gleason's theorem 
>>> that the only consistent measure is the Born rule.
>>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one CANNOT 
>>> derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether one affirms MWI 
>>> or not, the only thing one has to work with is an ensemble generated by 
>>> measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive Born's rule using a 
>>> one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so with many-worlds, since 
>>> in operational terms -- what is observed -- the two interpretations are 
>>> indistinguishable.  AG 
>> 
>> We are in many worlds simultaneously. The reason that the particles seems to 
>> go in two holes at once, is that we are in two similar worlds, with the only 
>> difference being that that particle path.
> 
> They have to be in the same world.  Otherwise they wouldn't interfere.

If they are in the same world, they can no more interfere statistically, and, 
also, you would be able to get two particles from one, which makes not much 
sense to me. 

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
>> The statistics come from the fact that there are infinitely many 
>> computations (in arithmetic) going through or mental state (as described as 
>> the relevant level of description: indeed a universal machine cannot 
>> distinguish them.
>> 
>> “Many-world” is a misleading label. There are no possible evidence for 
>> “worlds”, but it is easy (albeit tedious) to prove that all computations are 
>> realised, or emulated, in virtue of the true relations between numbers.
>> 
>> Are mechanism does put light on Everett QM, and that is why Everett used 
>> mechanism, but he failed to see where the compilations originate from.
>> 
>> Those advocating the existence of a (one) physical world have to abandon 
>> Mechanism (but then also Drawin, and most contemporary discoveries).
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 ISTM that whether we affirm one world or many worlds, all we can ever 
 measure is what observe in this world, and it is from this world that we 
 generate an ensemble after many trials from which to observe and affirm 
 Born's rule. What am I missing, if anything? TIA, AG
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 "Everything List" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everyth...@googlegroups.com .
 To view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1b4c467f-17bd-4438-aa05-1e9db3cb7562%40googlegroups.com
  
 .
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>>> .
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/122e8820-b97d-4f03-8250-7a0b421b9fa3%40googlegroups.com
>>>  
>>> .
>> 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/44284F11-7D8E-4258-B5D7-7A302EB1770E%40ulb.ac.be
>>  
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 16 Feb 2020, at 17:54, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>  
> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't mean THIS world 
> doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the process of measurement. AG 
> 
> 
> That's nice.
> 
> @philipthrift 
> 
> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement is done in this 
> world, it splits into two worlds, each with one of the possible measurements. 
> I see only one world being created, with this world remaining intact, and 
> then comes the second measurement, with its opposite occurring in another 
> world, or perhaps in the same world created by the first measurement. So for 
> N trials, the number of worlds created is N, or less. Isn't this what the MWI 
> means? AG 
> 
> 
> 
> There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible outcomes: O1 and O2.
> There are not two measurements M1 and M2.
> 
> Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not assigned "this" and 
> the other assigned "that", They have equal status in MWI reality. One is not 
> privileged over the other in any way.
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I wrote, which is 
> pretty simple. AG
> 
> 
> What you wrote has nothing to do with MWI. You created something different 
> from MWI (in the Carroll sense).
> But's OK to have your own interpretation. 
> 
> It's your own "interpretation", not MWI.  Publish it and call it something 
> else.
> 
> @philipthrift 
> 
> I suppose I'm just following Tegmark; everything that CAN happen, MUST 
> happen.  So, when an observer measures UP (or DN) in THIS world, another 
> world comes into existence wherein an observer MUST measure DN (or UP). From 
> this I get N or less worlds for N trials where the results of measurements 
> are binary, such as spin. Maybe not precisely MWI, but definitely less stupid 
> -- but still egregiously stupid. How could MWI be remotely correctly if it 
> alleges THIS world splits when it's never observed?

Everett explains this entirely in his long text. The observer cannot feel the 
split, nor observe it directly. But if QM (without collapse) is correct, it is 
up to the Uni-World to provide explanation of how “nature” makes some terms in 
the superposition disappear.

Also, the MW is also a consequence of Descartes (mechanism) + 
Turing-Church-Post-Kleene (i.e. the discovery of the computer … in the 
elementary arithmetical reality). 



> But now you say that for Everett there's no such thing as THIS world. All 
> this stuff, including Bruno's BS, is so profoundly dumb, I can't believe 
> we're even discussing it! Was it Brent on another thread who claimed many 
> physicists have become cultists? Whoever made that claim qualifies for 
> sanity. AG


Are you saying that the brain is not Turing emulable? Or what? All what I say 
follows from this “intuitively”, but is also recovered by the Platonician’s 
definition used in epistemology, when modelling  “rational belief” by 
“provability”, which is suggested by incompleteness. I do know philosophers who 
are not convinced, by I don’t do philosophy, I prefer to show a theory and its 
testability, and indeed I show exactly how to test experimentally between 
Mechanism and (Weak) Materialism (physicalism), and I show that quantum 
mechanics confirms Mechanism.

I am not the guy who comes with a new theory. I am just showing that the old 
and venerable Mechanist theory (in biology, psychology) is experimentally 
testable, and that QM without-collapse confirms it, like I show also that 
quantum logic confirms it.

What is your take on the WM-duplication? 

Bruno

PS if you could avoid the insults, and reason instead, that would be nice. 
Leave the insults to those who have no arguments.



> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7d2bbd20-fcf6-4882-b9e3-c55322a9deb7%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

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

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 12:03:00 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/16/2020 5:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Feb 2020, at 09:56, Alan Grayson > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I don't 
>> understand his argument, no doubt my failing. 
>>
>>
>> I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule has to 
>> stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be derived from 
>> the linear evolution.  Somehow a probability has to be introduced.  Once 
>> there is a probability measure, then it can be argued via Gleason's theorem 
>> that the only consistent measure is the Born rule.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one CANNOT 
> derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether one affirms MWI 
> or not, the only thing one has to work with is an ensemble generated by 
> measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive Born's rule using a 
> one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so with many-worlds, since 
> in operational terms -- what is observed -- the two interpretations are 
> indistinguishable.  AG 
>
>
> We are in many worlds simultaneously. The reason that the particles seems 
> to go in two holes at once, is that we are in two similar worlds, with the 
> only difference being that that particle path. 
>
>
> They have to be in the same world.  Otherwise they wouldn't interfere.
>
> Brent
>
> The statistics come from the fact that there are infinitely many 
> computations (in arithmetic) going through or mental state (as described as 
> the relevant level of description: indeed a universal machine cannot 
> distinguish them.
>
> “Many-world” is a misleading label. There are no possible evidence for 
> “worlds”, but it is easy (albeit tedious) to prove that all computations 
> are realised, or emulated, in virtue of the true relations between numbers.
>
> Are mechanism does put light on Everett QM, and that is why Everett used 
> mechanism, but he failed to see where the compilations originate from.
>
> Those advocating the existence of a (one) physical world have to abandon 
> Mechanism (but then also Drawin, and most contemporary discoveries).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
You remember that Sean Carroll has in the past posted on a "variation" of 
MWI - the MIWI.

*Guest Post: Chip Sebens on the Many-Interacting-Worlds Approach to Quantum 
Mechanics*

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/12/16/guest-post-chip-sebens-on-the-many-interacting-worlds-approach-to-quantum-mechanics/
 


"Worlds" are called "branches" in

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.08132.pdf

(where here branches apparently don't interact).

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5a2281f2-d56c-4b3d-a9a5-34d77458d8ae%40googlegroups.com.

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 2/16/2020 5:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 14 Feb 2020, at 09:56, Alan Grayson > wrote:




On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:



On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible.
I don't understand his argument, no doubt my failing. 



I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule
has to stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the SWE and can't
be derived from the linear evolution.  Somehow a probability has
to be introduced.  Once there is a probability measure, then it
can be argued via Gleason's theorem that the only consistent
measure is the Born rule.

Brent


I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one 
CANNOT derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether 
one affirms MWI or not, the only thing one has to work with is an 
ensemble generated by measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot 
derive Born's rule using a one-world theory, it would seem impossible 
to do so with many-worlds, since in operational terms -- what is 
observed -- the two interpretations are indistinguishable.  AG


We are in many worlds simultaneously. The reason that the particles 
seems to go in two holes at once, is that we are in two similar 
worlds, with the only difference being that that particle path.


They have to be in the same world.  Otherwise they wouldn't interfere.

Brent

The statistics come from the fact that there are infinitely many 
computations (in arithmetic) going through or mental state (as 
described as the relevant level of description: indeed a universal 
machine cannot distinguish them.


“Many-world” is a misleading label. There are no possible evidence for 
“worlds”, but it is easy (albeit tedious) to prove that all 
computations are realised, or emulated, in virtue of the true 
relations between numbers.


Are mechanism does put light on Everett QM, and that is why Everett 
used mechanism, but he failed to see where the compilations originate 
from.


Those advocating the existence of a (one) physical world have to 
abandon Mechanism (but then also Drawin, and most contemporary 
discoveries).


Bruno








ISTM that whether we affirm one world or many worlds, all we
can ever measure is what observe in this world, and it is
from this world that we generate an ensemble after many
trials from which to observe and affirm Born's rule. What am
I missing, if anything? TIA, AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com .
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1b4c467f-17bd-4438-aa05-1e9db3cb7562%40googlegroups.com

.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/122e8820-b97d-4f03-8250-7a0b421b9fa3%40googlegroups.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/44284F11-7D8E-4258-B5D7-7A302EB1770E%40ulb.ac.be 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1bf8a916-bd2d-16dc-d6a5-a76c1a9c625a%40verizon.net.

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>  
>> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't mean THIS 
>> world doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the process of 
>> measurement. 
>> AG 
>>
>
>
> That's nice.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

 Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement is done in 
 this world, it splits into two worlds, each with one of the possible 
 measurements. I see only one world being created, with this world 
 remaining 
 intact, and then comes the second measurement, with its opposite occurring 
 in another world, or perhaps in the same world created by the first 
 measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds created is N, or less. 
 Isn't this what the MWI means? AG 

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible outcomes: O1 
>>> and O2.
>>> There are not two measurements M1 and M2.
>>>
>>> Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not assigned "this" 
>>> and the other assigned "that", They have equal status in MWI reality. One 
>>> is not privileged over the other in any way.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I wrote, which is 
>> pretty simple. AG
>>
>
>
> What you wrote has* nothing to do with MWI*. You created something 
> different from MWI (in the Carroll sense).
> But's OK to have your own interpretation. 
>
> It's *your own "interpretation"*, not MWI.  Publish it and call it 
> something else.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

I suppose I'm just following Tegmark; everything that CAN happen, MUST 
happen.  So, when an observer measures UP (or DN) in THIS world, another 
world comes into existence wherein an observer MUST measure DN (or UP). 
>From this I get N or less worlds for N trials where the results of 
measurements are binary, such as spin. Maybe not precisely MWI, but 
definitely less stupid -- but still egregiously stupid. How could MWI be 
remotely correctly if it alleges THIS world splits when it's never 
observed? But now you say that for Everett there's no such thing as THIS 
world. All this stuff, including Bruno's BS, is so profoundly dumb, I can't 
believe we're even discussing it! Was it Brent on another thread who 
claimed many physicists have become cultists? Whoever made that claim 
qualifies for sanity. AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7d2bbd20-fcf6-4882-b9e3-c55322a9deb7%40googlegroups.com.

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 15 Feb 2020, at 23:29, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:32:47 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 12:01:20 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 10:55:30 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:42:13 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 10:22:14 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:19:23 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:04:31 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 5:05:26 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 5:32:55 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 2:55:48 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 7:14:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 3:55:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 9:48 PM Alan Grayson > wrote:
> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:49:44 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:45 PM Alan Grayson > wrote:
> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:34:59 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alan Grayson > wrote:
> On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
> On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I don't 
>> understand his argument, no doubt my failing.
> 
> I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule has to 
> stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be derived from the 
> linear evolution.  Somehow a probability has to be introduced.  Once there is 
> a probability measure, then it can be argued via Gleason's theorem that 
> the only consistent measure is the Born rule.
> 
> Brent
> 
> I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one CANNOT 
> derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether one affirms MWI 
> or not, the only thing one has to work with is an ensemble generated by 
> measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive Born's rule using a 
> one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so with many-worlds, since 
> in operational terms -- what is observed -- the two interpretations are 
> indistinguishable.  AG 
> 
> That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can move on from 
> there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of measurements are 
> generated, and most will give different values for the probabilities. For the 
> observers getting the alternative data, there is nothing to tell them that 
> they are getting the wrong answer. MWI is incoherent.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> But won't the hypothetical observers in OTHER worlds get the same ensembles 
> and thus the same distributions? AG 
> 
> No, The point of MWI is that other worlds get different data.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> On each individual trial of course, with the exception that some outcomes 
> have the identical probability.  But since the ensembles are generated by the 
> same wf, I think they're identical.  AG
> 
> 
> Think again. If there are N repetitions of the measurement with two possible 
> outcomes, there are 2^N different sets of results. 
> some sets have the same or similar frequencies, but others have very 
> different frequencies. So many different ideas about the probabilities are 
> obtained in different branches. The wave function does not affect this result.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> If there are only two possible outcomes in this world, won't the ensemble in 
> the unobserved world, be the complement of the ensemble in this world? AG 
> 
> More like clones than complements.
> 
> If there is a quantum coin flip (QCF) in world w, then there are two copies 
> (branches) w-0 and w-1 with w-0 and w-1 being clones of w with the difference 
> being the two possible outcomes. w no longer exists.
> 
> This proceeds with N QCFs via branching to 2^N worlds w-x[1]...x[N], x[i] in 
> {0,1}
> 
> So with just 1 QCFs there are now 
> 
> #python
> print(2**1)
> 
> 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 15 Feb 2020, at 18:04, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 5:05:26 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 5:32:55 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 2:55:48 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 7:14:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 3:55:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 9:48 PM Alan Grayson > wrote:
> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:49:44 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:45 PM Alan Grayson > wrote:
> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:34:59 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alan Grayson > wrote:
> On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
> On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I don't 
>> understand his argument, no doubt my failing.
> 
> I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule has to 
> stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be derived from the 
> linear evolution.  Somehow a probability has to be introduced.  Once there is 
> a probability measure, then it can be argued via Gleason's theorem that the 
> only consistent measure is the Born rule.
> 
> Brent
> 
> I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one CANNOT 
> derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether one affirms MWI 
> or not, the only thing one has to work with is an ensemble generated by 
> measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive Born's rule using a 
> one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so with many-worlds, since 
> in operational terms -- what is observed -- the two interpretations are 
> indistinguishable.  AG 
> 
> That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can move on from 
> there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of measurements are 
> generated, and most will give different values for the probabilities. For the 
> observers getting the alternative data, there is nothing to tell them that 
> they are getting the wrong answer. MWI is incoherent.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> But won't the hypothetical observers in OTHER worlds get the same ensembles 
> and thus the same distributions? AG 
> 
> No, The point of MWI is that other worlds get different data.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> On each individual trial of course, with the exception that some outcomes 
> have the identical probability.  But since the ensembles are generated by the 
> same wf, I think they're identical.  AG
> 
> 
> Think again. If there are N repetitions of the measurement with two possible 
> outcomes, there are 2^N different sets of results. 
> some sets have the same or similar frequencies, but others have very 
> different frequencies. So many different ideas about the probabilities are 
> obtained in different branches. The wave function does not affect this result.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> If there are only two possible outcomes in this world, won't the ensemble in 
> the unobserved world, be the complement of the ensemble in this world? AG 
> 
> More like clones than complements.
> 
> If there is a quantum coin flip (QCF) in world w, then there are two copies 
> (branches) w-0 and w-1 with w-0 and w-1 being clones of w with the difference 
> being the two possible outcomes. w no longer exists.
> 
> This proceeds with N QCFs via branching to 2^N worlds w-x[1]...x[N], x[i] in 
> {0,1}
> 
> So with just 1 QCFs there are now 
> 
> #python
> print(2**1)
> 
> 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 15 Feb 2020, at 13:05, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 5:32:55 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 2:55:48 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 7:14:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 3:55:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 9:48 PM Alan Grayson > wrote:
> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:49:44 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:45 PM Alan Grayson > wrote:
> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:34:59 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alan Grayson > wrote:
> On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
> On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I don't 
>> understand his argument, no doubt my failing.
> 
> I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule has to 
> stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be derived from the 
> linear evolution.  Somehow a probability has to be introduced.  Once there is 
> a probability measure, then it can be argued via Gleason's theorem that the 
> only consistent measure is the Born rule.
> 
> Brent
> 
> I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one CANNOT 
> derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether one affirms MWI 
> or not, the only thing one has to work with is an ensemble generated by 
> measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive Born's rule using a 
> one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so with many-worlds, since 
> in operational terms -- what is observed -- the two interpretations are 
> indistinguishable.  AG 
> 
> That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can move on from 
> there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of measurements are 
> generated, and most will give different values for the probabilities. For the 
> observers getting the alternative data, there is nothing to tell them that 
> they are getting the wrong answer. MWI is incoherent.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> But won't the hypothetical observers in OTHER worlds get the same ensembles 
> and thus the same distributions? AG 
> 
> No, The point of MWI is that other worlds get different data.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> On each individual trial of course, with the exception that some outcomes 
> have the identical probability.  But since the ensembles are generated by the 
> same wf, I think they're identical.  AG
> 
> 
> Think again. If there are N repetitions of the measurement with two possible 
> outcomes, there are 2^N different sets of results. 
> some sets have the same or similar frequencies, but others have very 
> different frequencies. So many different ideas about the probabilities are 
> obtained in different branches. The wave function does not affect this result.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> If there are only two possible outcomes in this world, won't the ensemble in 
> the unobserved world, be the complement of the ensemble in this world? AG 
> 
> More like clones than complements.
> 
> If there is a quantum coin flip (QCF) in world w, then there are two copies 
> (branches) w-0 and w-1 with w-0 and w-1 being clones of w with the difference 
> being the two possible outcomes. w no longer exists.
> 
> This proceeds with N QCFs via branching to 2^N worlds w-x[1]...x[N], x[i] in 
> {0,1}
> 
> So with just 1 QCFs there are now 
> 
> #python
> print(2**1)
> 
> 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 14 Feb 2020, at 22:31, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 6:14 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
> On 2/14/2020 1:34 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> 
>> That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can move on from 
>> there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of measurements are 
>> generated, and most will give different values for the probabilities. For 
>> the observers getting the alternative data, there is nothing to tell them 
>> that they are getting the wrong answer. MWI is incoherent.
> 
> Since it's an interpretation, not a theory, then there's nothing to tell us 
> we're getting the wrong answer either.  We only think "answers" are wrong if 
> they aren't replicated.
> 
> Probably true... But that is exactly what happens in MWI with one branch per 
> outcome —

That never happens. It is always 2^aleph_0, at the least.




> the data obtained are independent of the amplitudes/coefficients in the 
> original state.

Yes, but the relative probabilities, knowing the present states, is dependent 
of those coefficients.



> So only a miracle could ensure that repeats of an experiment gave the same 
> results. Hence, by the "no miracles" argument, MWI is incoherent.

Your interpretation of the MW seems incoherent, to me. It is more like a 
many-histories, which are only the computations (run in the arithmetical 
reality) seen from inside, which can be defined using the tools of computer 
science (which belongs to arithmetic, but not necessarily in its computable 
part, due to the first person indeterminacy on all (relative) computational 
continuations.

Bruno




> 
> Bruce
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRMJH5hHk4-O3UDe0tE2MmHtZiEJf-PEXuLEwCirq8JwQ%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/AA6EB851-E436-4B42-9AF1-CF53FAE16E9B%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 14 Feb 2020, at 09:56, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I don't 
>> understand his argument, no doubt my failing.
> 
> I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule has to 
> stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be derived from the 
> linear evolution.  Somehow a probability has to be introduced.  Once there is 
> a probability measure, then it can be argued via Gleason's theorem that the 
> only consistent measure is the Born rule.
> 
> Brent
> 
> I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one CANNOT 
> derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether one affirms MWI 
> or not, the only thing one has to work with is an ensemble generated by 
> measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive Born's rule using a 
> one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so with many-worlds, since 
> in operational terms -- what is observed -- the two interpretations are 
> indistinguishable.  AG 

We are in many worlds simultaneously. The reason that the particles seems to go 
in two holes at once, is that we are in two similar worlds, with the only 
difference being that that particle path. The statistics come from the fact 
that there are infinitely many computations (in arithmetic) going through or 
mental state (as described as the relevant level of description: indeed a 
universal machine cannot distinguish them.

“Many-world” is a misleading label. There are no possible evidence for 
“worlds”, but it is easy (albeit tedious) to prove that all computations are 
realised, or emulated, in virtue of the true relations between numbers.

Are mechanism does put light on Everett QM, and that is why Everett used 
mechanism, but he failed to see where the compilations originate from.

Those advocating the existence of a (one) physical world have to abandon 
Mechanism (but then also Drawin, and most contemporary discoveries).

Bruno





> 
>> ISTM that whether we affirm one world or many worlds, all we can ever 
>> measure is what observe in this world, and it is from this world that we 
>> generate an ensemble after many trials from which to observe and affirm 
>> Born's rule. What am I missing, if anything? TIA, AG
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everyth...@googlegroups.com .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1b4c467f-17bd-4438-aa05-1e9db3cb7562%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/122e8820-b97d-4f03-8250-7a0b421b9fa3%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/44284F11-7D8E-4258-B5D7-7A302EB1770E%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:19:36 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:



 On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>  
> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't mean THIS 
> world doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the process of measurement. 
> AG 
>


 That's nice.

 @philipthrift 

>>>
>>> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement is done in this 
>>> world, it splits into two worlds, each with one of the possible 
>>> measurements. I see only one world being created, with this world remaining 
>>> intact, and then comes the second measurement, with its opposite occurring 
>>> in another world, or perhaps in the same world created by the first 
>>> measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds created is N, or less. 
>>> Isn't this what the MWI means? AG 
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible outcomes: O1 and 
>> O2.
>> There are not two measurements M1 and M2.
>>
>> Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not assigned "this" 
>> and the other assigned "that", They have equal status in MWI reality. One 
>> is not privileged over the other in any way.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I wrote, which is 
> pretty simple. AG
>


What you wrote has* nothing to do with MWI*. You created something 
different from MWI (in the Carroll sense).
But's OK to have your own interpretation. 

It's *your own "interpretation"*, not MWI.  Publish it and call it 
something else.

@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6685a411-dd1d-45c9-83c2-51d11514b81e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 4:58:33 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:

  
 I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't mean THIS 
 world doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the process of measurement. 
 AG 

>>>
>>>
>>> That's nice.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift 
>>>
>>
>> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement is done in this 
>> world, it splits into two worlds, each with one of the possible 
>> measurements. I see only one world being created, with this world remaining 
>> intact, and then comes the second measurement, with its opposite occurring 
>> in another world, or perhaps in the same world created by the first 
>> measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds created is N, or less. 
>> Isn't this what the MWI means? AG 
>>
>
>
>
> There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible outcomes: O1 and 
> O2.
> There are not two measurements M1 and M2.
>
> Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not assigned "this" 
> and the other assigned "that", They have equal status in MWI reality. One 
> is not privileged over the other in any way.
>
> @philipthrift
>

This is hopeless. It's like you don't understand what I wrote, which is 
pretty simple. AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d6dd87d5-a446-4e24-bb63-5166518b813d%40googlegroups.com.

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 2:51:53 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>  
>>> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't mean THIS 
>>> world doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the process of measurement. 
>>> AG 
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's nice.
>>
>> @philipthrift 
>>
>
> Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement is done in this 
> world, it splits into two worlds, each with one of the possible 
> measurements. I see only one world being created, with this world remaining 
> intact, and then comes the second measurement, with its opposite occurring 
> in another world, or perhaps in the same world created by the first 
> measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds created is N, or less. 
> Isn't this what the MWI means? AG 
>



There is one measurement M in world w, with two possible outcomes: O1 and 
O2.
There are not two measurements M1 and M2.

Of the two worlds w-O1 and w-O2 post world w, one is not assigned "this" 
and the other assigned "that", They have equal status in MWI reality. One 
is not privileged over the other in any way.

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f8349046-e3c2-448d-a73e-4bc07631ff40%40googlegroups.com.

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 1:45:50 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>  
>> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't mean THIS world 
>> doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the process of measurement. AG 
>>
>
>
> That's nice.
>
> @philipthrift 
>

Nice how? Bruce seems to think when a binary measurement is done in this 
world, it splits into two worlds, each with one of the possible 
measurements. I see only one world being created, with this world remaining 
intact, and then comes the second measurement, with its opposite occurring 
in another world, or perhaps in the same world created by the first 
measurement. So for N trials, the number of worlds created is N, or less. 
Isn't this what the MWI means? AG 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b8d6130a-2d09-43a3-a733-ba1d55156491%40googlegroups.com.

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 4:29:11 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>  
> I posted what MWI means. No need to repeat it. It doesn't mean THIS world 
> doesn't exist, or somehow disappears in the process of measurement. AG 
>


That's nice.

@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/55d8cd20-584f-4911-a58b-65b4e86ffc46%40googlegroups.com.

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:32:47 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 12:01:20 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 10:55:30 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:42:13 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 10:22:14 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:19:23 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:04:31 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 5:05:26 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift 
>>> wrote:



 On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 5:32:55 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 2:55:48 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 7:14:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 3:55:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:

 On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 9:48 PM Alan Grayson <
 agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:49:44 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:45 PM Alan Grayson <
>> agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:34:59 AM UTC-7, Bruce 
>>> wrote:

 On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alan Grayson <
 agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent 
> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are 
>> incompatible. I don't understand his argument, no doubt my 
>> failing. 
>>
>>
>> I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the 
>> Born rule has to stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the 
>> SWE and can't 
>> be derived from the linear evolution.  Somehow a probability 
>> has to be 
>> introduced.  Once there is a probability measure, then it 
>> can be argued via 
>> Gleason's theorem that the only consistent measure is the 
>> Born rule.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the 
> MWI, one CANNOT derive Born's rule as claimed by its 
> advocates. But whether 
> one affirms MWI or not, the only thing one has to work with 
> is an ensemble 
> generated by measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot 
> derive Born's 
> rule using a one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do 
> so with 
> many-worlds, since in operational terms -- what is observed 
> -- the two 
> interpretations are indistinguishable.  AG 
>

 That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we 
 can move on from there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible 
 sets of 
 measurements are generated, and most will give different 
 values for the 
 probabilities. For the observers getting the alternative data, 
 there is 
 nothing to tell them that they are getting the wrong answer. 
 MWI is 
 incoherent.

 Bruce

>>>
>>> But won't the hypothetical observers in OTHER worlds get the 
>>> same ensembles and thus the same distributions? AG 
>>>
>>
>> No, The point of MWI is that other worlds get different data.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> On each individual trial of course, with the exception that 
> some outcomes have the identical probability.  But since the 
> ensembles are 
> generated by the same wf, I think they're identical.  AG
>


 Think again. If there are N repetitions of the measurement with 
 two possible outcomes, there are 2^N different sets of results.
  

>>> some sets have the same or 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 12:01:20 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 10:55:30 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:42:13 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 10:22:14 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:



 On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:19:23 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:04:31 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 5:05:26 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 5:32:55 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson 
>>> wrote:



 On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 2:55:48 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 7:14:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 3:55:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 9:48 PM Alan Grayson <
>>> agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:49:44 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:45 PM Alan Grayson <
> agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:34:59 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alan Grayson <
>>> agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent 
 wrote:
>
> On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are 
> incompatible. I don't understand his argument, no doubt my 
> failing. 
>
>
> I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the 
> Born rule has to stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the 
> SWE and can't 
> be derived from the linear evolution.  Somehow a probability 
> has to be 
> introduced.  Once there is a probability measure, then it can 
> be argued via 
> Gleason's theorem that the only consistent measure is the 
> Born rule.
>
> Brent
>

 I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the 
 MWI, one CANNOT derive Born's rule as claimed by its 
 advocates. But whether 
 one affirms MWI or not, the only thing one has to work with is 
 an ensemble 
 generated by measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot 
 derive Born's 
 rule using a one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do 
 so with 
 many-worlds, since in operational terms -- what is observed -- 
 the two 
 interpretations are indistinguishable.  AG 

>>>
>>> That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we 
>>> can move on from there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible 
>>> sets of 
>>> measurements are generated, and most will give different values 
>>> for the 
>>> probabilities. For the observers getting the alternative data, 
>>> there is 
>>> nothing to tell them that they are getting the wrong answer. 
>>> MWI is 
>>> incoherent.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> But won't the hypothetical observers in OTHER worlds get the 
>> same ensembles and thus the same distributions? AG 
>>
>
> No, The point of MWI is that other worlds get different data.
>
> Bruce
>

 On each individual trial of course, with the exception that 
 some outcomes have the identical probability.  But since the 
 ensembles are 
 generated by the same wf, I think they're identical.  AG

>>>
>>>
>>> Think again. If there are N repetitions of the measurement with 
>>> two possible outcomes, there are 2^N different sets of results. 
>>>
>> some sets have the same or similar frequencies, but others have 
>>> very different frequencies. So many different ideas about the 
>>> probabilities 
>>> are obtained in different branches. The wave function does not 
>>> affect this 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 10:55:30 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:42:13 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 10:22:14 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:19:23 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:



 On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:04:31 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 5:05:26 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 5:32:55 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 2:55:48 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift 
>>> wrote:



 On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 7:14:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 3:55:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 9:48 PM Alan Grayson  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:49:44 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:

 On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:45 PM Alan Grayson <
 agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:34:59 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alan Grayson <
>> agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent 
>>> wrote:

 On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

 Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. 
 I don't understand his argument, no doubt my failing. 


 I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the 
 Born rule has to stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the 
 SWE and can't 
 be derived from the linear evolution.  Somehow a probability 
 has to be 
 introduced.  Once there is a probability measure, then it can 
 be argued via 
 Gleason's theorem that the only consistent measure is the Born 
 rule.

 Brent

>>>
>>> I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, 
>>> one CANNOT derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But 
>>> whether one 
>>> affirms MWI or not, the only thing one has to work with is an 
>>> ensemble 
>>> generated by measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot 
>>> derive Born's 
>>> rule using a one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do 
>>> so with 
>>> many-worlds, since in operational terms -- what is observed -- 
>>> the two 
>>> interpretations are indistinguishable.  AG 
>>>
>>
>> That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we 
>> can move on from there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible 
>> sets of 
>> measurements are generated, and most will give different values 
>> for the 
>> probabilities. For the observers getting the alternative data, 
>> there is 
>> nothing to tell them that they are getting the wrong answer. MWI 
>> is 
>> incoherent.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> But won't the hypothetical observers in OTHER worlds get the 
> same ensembles and thus the same distributions? AG 
>

 No, The point of MWI is that other worlds get different data.

 Bruce

>>>
>>> On each individual trial of course, with the exception that some 
>>> outcomes have the identical probability.  But since the ensembles 
>>> are 
>>> generated by the same wf, I think they're identical.  AG
>>>
>>
>>
>> Think again. If there are N repetitions of the measurement with 
>> two possible outcomes, there are 2^N different sets of results. 
>>
> some sets have the same or similar frequencies, but others have 
>> very different frequencies. So many different ideas about the 
>> probabilities 
>> are obtained in different branches. The wave function does not 
>> affect this 
>> result.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> If there are only two possible outcomes in this world, won't the 
> ensemble in the unobserved world, be the complement of the ensemble 
> in this 
> world? AG 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:42:13 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 10:22:14 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:19:23 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:04:31 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 5:05:26 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 5:32:55 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 2:55:48 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 7:14:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 3:55:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 9:48 PM Alan Grayson  
> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:49:44 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:45 PM Alan Grayson <
>>> agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:34:59 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alan Grayson <
> agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. 
>>> I don't understand his argument, no doubt my failing. 
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born 
>>> rule has to stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the SWE and 
>>> can't be 
>>> derived from the linear evolution.  Somehow a probability has 
>>> to be 
>>> introduced.  Once there is a probability measure, then it can 
>>> be argued via 
>>> Gleason's theorem that the only consistent measure is the Born 
>>> rule.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, 
>> one CANNOT derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But 
>> whether one 
>> affirms MWI or not, the only thing one has to work with is an 
>> ensemble 
>> generated by measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive 
>> Born's 
>> rule using a one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so 
>> with 
>> many-worlds, since in operational terms -- what is observed -- 
>> the two 
>> interpretations are indistinguishable.  AG 
>>
>
> That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can 
> move on from there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of 
> measurements are generated, and most will give different values 
> for the 
> probabilities. For the observers getting the alternative data, 
> there is 
> nothing to tell them that they are getting the wrong answer. MWI 
> is 
> incoherent.
>
> Bruce
>

 But won't the hypothetical observers in OTHER worlds get the 
 same ensembles and thus the same distributions? AG 

>>>
>>> No, The point of MWI is that other worlds get different data.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> On each individual trial of course, with the exception that some 
>> outcomes have the identical probability.  But since the ensembles 
>> are 
>> generated by the same wf, I think they're identical.  AG
>>
>
>
> Think again. If there are N repetitions of the measurement with 
> two possible outcomes, there are 2^N different sets of results. 
>
 some sets have the same or similar frequencies, but others have 
> very different frequencies. So many different ideas about the 
> probabilities 
> are obtained in different branches. The wave function does not affect 
> this 
> result.
>
> Bruce
>

 If there are only two possible outcomes in this world, won't the 
 ensemble in the unobserved world, be the complement of the ensemble in 
 this 
 world? AG 

>>>
>>> More like clones than complements.
>>>
>>> If there is a quantum coin flip (QCF) in world w, then there are two 
>>> copies (branches) w-0 and w-1 with w-0 and w-1 being clones of w with 
>>> the 
>>> difference 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 10:22:14 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:19:23 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:04:31 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 5:05:26 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:



 On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 5:32:55 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 2:55:48 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 7:14:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 3:55:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:

 On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 9:48 PM Alan Grayson  
 wrote:

> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:49:44 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:45 PM Alan Grayson  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:34:59 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:

 On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alan Grayson <
 agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent 
> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I 
>> don't understand his argument, no doubt my failing. 
>>
>>
>> I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born 
>> rule has to stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the SWE and 
>> can't be 
>> derived from the linear evolution.  Somehow a probability has to 
>> be 
>> introduced.  Once there is a probability measure, then it can be 
>> argued via 
>> Gleason's theorem that the only consistent measure is the Born 
>> rule.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, 
> one CANNOT derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But 
> whether one 
> affirms MWI or not, the only thing one has to work with is an 
> ensemble 
> generated by measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive 
> Born's 
> rule using a one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so 
> with 
> many-worlds, since in operational terms -- what is observed -- 
> the two 
> interpretations are indistinguishable.  AG 
>

 That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can 
 move on from there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of 
 measurements are generated, and most will give different values 
 for the 
 probabilities. For the observers getting the alternative data, 
 there is 
 nothing to tell them that they are getting the wrong answer. MWI 
 is 
 incoherent.

 Bruce

>>>
>>> But won't the hypothetical observers in OTHER worlds get the 
>>> same ensembles and thus the same distributions? AG 
>>>
>>
>> No, The point of MWI is that other worlds get different data.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> On each individual trial of course, with the exception that some 
> outcomes have the identical probability.  But since the ensembles are 
> generated by the same wf, I think they're identical.  AG
>


 Think again. If there are N repetitions of the measurement with two 
 possible outcomes, there are 2^N different sets of results. 

>>> some sets have the same or similar frequencies, but others have very 
 different frequencies. So many different ideas about the probabilities 
 are 
 obtained in different branches. The wave function does not affect this 
 result.

 Bruce

>>>
>>> If there are only two possible outcomes in this world, won't the 
>>> ensemble in the unobserved world, be the complement of the ensemble in 
>>> this 
>>> world? AG 
>>>
>>
>> More like clones than complements.
>>
>> If there is a quantum coin flip (QCF) in world w, then there are two 
>> copies (branches) w-0 and w-1 with w-0 and w-1 being clones of w with 
>> the 
>> difference being the two possible outcomes. w no longer exists.
>>
>> This proceeds with N QCFs via branching to 2^N worlds w-x[1]...x[N], 
>> x[i] in {0,1}
>>
>> So with just 1 QCFs there are now 
>>
>> #python
>> print(2**1)

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:19:23 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:04:31 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 5:05:26 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 5:32:55 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 2:55:48 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 7:14:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 3:55:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 9:48 PM Alan Grayson  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:49:44 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:45 PM Alan Grayson  
> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:34:59 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alan Grayson <
>>> agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
> On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I 
> don't understand his argument, no doubt my failing. 
>
>
> I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born 
> rule has to stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the SWE and 
> can't be 
> derived from the linear evolution.  Somehow a probability has to 
> be 
> introduced.  Once there is a probability measure, then it can be 
> argued via 
> Gleason's theorem that the only consistent measure is the Born 
> rule.
>
> Brent
>

 I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, 
 one CANNOT derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But 
 whether one 
 affirms MWI or not, the only thing one has to work with is an 
 ensemble 
 generated by measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive 
 Born's 
 rule using a one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so 
 with 
 many-worlds, since in operational terms -- what is observed -- the 
 two 
 interpretations are indistinguishable.  AG 

>>>
>>> That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can 
>>> move on from there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of 
>>> measurements are generated, and most will give different values for 
>>> the 
>>> probabilities. For the observers getting the alternative data, 
>>> there is 
>>> nothing to tell them that they are getting the wrong answer. MWI is 
>>> incoherent.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> But won't the hypothetical observers in OTHER worlds get the same 
>> ensembles and thus the same distributions? AG 
>>
>
> No, The point of MWI is that other worlds get different data.
>
> Bruce
>

 On each individual trial of course, with the exception that some 
 outcomes have the identical probability.  But since the ensembles are 
 generated by the same wf, I think they're identical.  AG

>>>
>>>
>>> Think again. If there are N repetitions of the measurement with two 
>>> possible outcomes, there are 2^N different sets of results. 
>>>
>> some sets have the same or similar frequencies, but others have very 
>>> different frequencies. So many different ideas about the probabilities 
>>> are 
>>> obtained in different branches. The wave function does not affect this 
>>> result.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> If there are only two possible outcomes in this world, won't the 
>> ensemble in the unobserved world, be the complement of the ensemble in 
>> this 
>> world? AG 
>>
>
> More like clones than complements.
>
> If there is a quantum coin flip (QCF) in world w, then there are two 
> copies (branches) w-0 and w-1 with w-0 and w-1 being clones of w with the 
> difference being the two possible outcomes. w no longer exists.
>
> This proceeds with N QCFs via branching to 2^N worlds w-x[1]...x[N], 
> x[i] in {0,1}
>
> So with just 1 QCFs there are now 
>
> #python
> print(2**1)
>
>
> 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:04:31 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 5:05:26 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 5:32:55 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 2:55:48 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:



 On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 7:14:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 3:55:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 9:48 PM Alan Grayson  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:49:44 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:

 On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:45 PM Alan Grayson  
 wrote:

> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:34:59 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alan Grayson  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:

 On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

 Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I 
 don't understand his argument, no doubt my failing. 


 I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born 
 rule has to stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the SWE and 
 can't be 
 derived from the linear evolution.  Somehow a probability has to 
 be 
 introduced.  Once there is a probability measure, then it can be 
 argued via 
 Gleason's theorem that the only consistent measure is the Born 
 rule.

 Brent

>>>
>>> I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one 
>>> CANNOT derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether 
>>> one 
>>> affirms MWI or not, the only thing one has to work with is an 
>>> ensemble 
>>> generated by measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive 
>>> Born's 
>>> rule using a one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so 
>>> with 
>>> many-worlds, since in operational terms -- what is observed -- the 
>>> two 
>>> interpretations are indistinguishable.  AG 
>>>
>>
>> That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can 
>> move on from there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of 
>> measurements are generated, and most will give different values for 
>> the 
>> probabilities. For the observers getting the alternative data, there 
>> is 
>> nothing to tell them that they are getting the wrong answer. MWI is 
>> incoherent.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> But won't the hypothetical observers in OTHER worlds get the same 
> ensembles and thus the same distributions? AG 
>

 No, The point of MWI is that other worlds get different data.

 Bruce

>>>
>>> On each individual trial of course, with the exception that some 
>>> outcomes have the identical probability.  But since the ensembles are 
>>> generated by the same wf, I think they're identical.  AG
>>>
>>
>>
>> Think again. If there are N repetitions of the measurement with two 
>> possible outcomes, there are 2^N different sets of results. 
>>
> some sets have the same or similar frequencies, but others have very 
>> different frequencies. So many different ideas about the probabilities 
>> are 
>> obtained in different branches. The wave function does not affect this 
>> result.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> If there are only two possible outcomes in this world, won't the 
> ensemble in the unobserved world, be the complement of the ensemble in 
> this 
> world? AG 
>

 More like clones than complements.

 If there is a quantum coin flip (QCF) in world w, then there are two 
 copies (branches) w-0 and w-1 with w-0 and w-1 being clones of w with the 
 difference being the two possible outcomes. w no longer exists.

 This proceeds with N QCFs via branching to 2^N worlds w-x[1]...x[N], 
 x[i] in {0,1}

 So with just 1 QCFs there are now 

 #python
 print(2**1)


 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 5:05:26 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 5:32:55 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 2:55:48 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 7:14:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 3:55:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 9:48 PM Alan Grayson  
> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:49:44 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:45 PM Alan Grayson  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:34:59 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alan Grayson  
> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I 
>>> don't understand his argument, no doubt my failing. 
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born 
>>> rule has to stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the SWE and 
>>> can't be 
>>> derived from the linear evolution.  Somehow a probability has to be 
>>> introduced.  Once there is a probability measure, then it can be 
>>> argued via 
>>> Gleason's theorem that the only consistent measure is the Born rule.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one 
>> CANNOT derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether 
>> one 
>> affirms MWI or not, the only thing one has to work with is an 
>> ensemble 
>> generated by measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive 
>> Born's 
>> rule using a one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so 
>> with 
>> many-worlds, since in operational terms -- what is observed -- the 
>> two 
>> interpretations are indistinguishable.  AG 
>>
>
> That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can 
> move on from there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of 
> measurements are generated, and most will give different values for 
> the 
> probabilities. For the observers getting the alternative data, there 
> is 
> nothing to tell them that they are getting the wrong answer. MWI is 
> incoherent.
>
> Bruce
>

 But won't the hypothetical observers in OTHER worlds get the same 
 ensembles and thus the same distributions? AG 

>>>
>>> No, The point of MWI is that other worlds get different data.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> On each individual trial of course, with the exception that some 
>> outcomes have the identical probability.  But since the ensembles are 
>> generated by the same wf, I think they're identical.  AG
>>
>
>
> Think again. If there are N repetitions of the measurement with two 
> possible outcomes, there are 2^N different sets of results. 
>
 some sets have the same or similar frequencies, but others have very 
> different frequencies. So many different ideas about the probabilities 
> are 
> obtained in different branches. The wave function does not affect this 
> result.
>
> Bruce
>

 If there are only two possible outcomes in this world, won't the 
 ensemble in the unobserved world, be the complement of the ensemble in 
 this 
 world? AG 

>>>
>>> More like clones than complements.
>>>
>>> If there is a quantum coin flip (QCF) in world w, then there are two 
>>> copies (branches) w-0 and w-1 with w-0 and w-1 being clones of w with the 
>>> difference being the two possible outcomes. w no longer exists.
>>>
>>> This proceeds with N QCFs via branching to 2^N worlds w-x[1]...x[N], 
>>> x[i] in {0,1}
>>>
>>> So with just 1 QCFs there are now 
>>>
>>> #python
>>> print(2**1)
>>>
>>>
>>> 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 5:32:55 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 2:55:48 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 7:14:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 3:55:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:

 On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 9:48 PM Alan Grayson  
 wrote:

> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:49:44 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:45 PM Alan Grayson  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:34:59 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:

 On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alan Grayson  
 wrote:

> On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I 
>> don't understand his argument, no doubt my failing. 
>>
>>
>> I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule 
>> has to stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be 
>> derived 
>> from the linear evolution.  Somehow a probability has to be 
>> introduced.  
>> Once there is a probability measure, then it can be argued via 
>> Gleason's 
>> theorem that the only consistent measure is the Born rule.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one 
> CANNOT derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether 
> one 
> affirms MWI or not, the only thing one has to work with is an 
> ensemble 
> generated by measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive 
> Born's 
> rule using a one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so with 
> many-worlds, since in operational terms -- what is observed -- the 
> two 
> interpretations are indistinguishable.  AG 
>

 That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can move 
 on from there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of 
 measurements 
 are generated, and most will give different values for the 
 probabilities. 
 For the observers getting the alternative data, there is nothing to 
 tell 
 them that they are getting the wrong answer. MWI is incoherent.

 Bruce

>>>
>>> But won't the hypothetical observers in OTHER worlds get the same 
>>> ensembles and thus the same distributions? AG 
>>>
>>
>> No, The point of MWI is that other worlds get different data.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> On each individual trial of course, with the exception that some 
> outcomes have the identical probability.  But since the ensembles are 
> generated by the same wf, I think they're identical.  AG
>


 Think again. If there are N repetitions of the measurement with two 
 possible outcomes, there are 2^N different sets of results. 

>>> some sets have the same or similar frequencies, but others have very 
 different frequencies. So many different ideas about the probabilities are 
 obtained in different branches. The wave function does not affect this 
 result.

 Bruce

>>>
>>> If there are only two possible outcomes in this world, won't the 
>>> ensemble in the unobserved world, be the complement of the ensemble in this 
>>> world? AG 
>>>
>>
>> More like clones than complements.
>>
>> If there is a quantum coin flip (QCF) in world w, then there are two 
>> copies (branches) w-0 and w-1 with w-0 and w-1 being clones of w with the 
>> difference being the two possible outcomes. w no longer exists.
>>
>> This proceeds with N QCFs via branching to 2^N worlds w-x[1]...x[N], x[i] 
>> in {0,1}
>>
>> So with just 1 QCFs there are now 
>>
>> #python
>> print(2**1)
>>
>>
>> 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 2:55:48 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 7:14:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 3:55:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 9:48 PM Alan Grayson  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:49:44 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:45 PM Alan Grayson  
> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:34:59 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alan Grayson  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
> On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I 
> don't understand his argument, no doubt my failing. 
>
>
> I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule 
> has to stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be 
> derived 
> from the linear evolution.  Somehow a probability has to be 
> introduced.  
> Once there is a probability measure, then it can be argued via 
> Gleason's 
> theorem that the only consistent measure is the Born rule.
>
> Brent
>

 I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one 
 CANNOT derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether one 
 affirms MWI or not, the only thing one has to work with is an ensemble 
 generated by measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive 
 Born's 
 rule using a one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so with 
 many-worlds, since in operational terms -- what is observed -- the two 
 interpretations are indistinguishable.  AG 

>>>
>>> That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can move 
>>> on from there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of 
>>> measurements 
>>> are generated, and most will give different values for the 
>>> probabilities. 
>>> For the observers getting the alternative data, there is nothing to 
>>> tell 
>>> them that they are getting the wrong answer. MWI is incoherent.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> But won't the hypothetical observers in OTHER worlds get the same 
>> ensembles and thus the same distributions? AG 
>>
>
> No, The point of MWI is that other worlds get different data.
>
> Bruce
>

 On each individual trial of course, with the exception that some 
 outcomes have the identical probability.  But since the ensembles are 
 generated by the same wf, I think they're identical.  AG

>>>
>>>
>>> Think again. If there are N repetitions of the measurement with two 
>>> possible outcomes, there are 2^N different sets of results. 
>>>
>> some sets have the same or similar frequencies, but others have very 
>>> different frequencies. So many different ideas about the probabilities are 
>>> obtained in different branches. The wave function does not affect this 
>>> result.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> If there are only two possible outcomes in this world, won't the ensemble 
>> in the unobserved world, be the complement of the ensemble in this world? 
>> AG 
>>
>
> More like clones than complements.
>
> If there is a quantum coin flip (QCF) in world w, then there are two 
> copies (branches) w-0 and w-1 with w-0 and w-1 being clones of w with the 
> difference being the two possible outcomes. w no longer exists.
>
> This proceeds with N QCFs via branching to 2^N worlds w-x[1]...x[N], x[i] 
> in {0,1}
>
> So with just 1 QCFs there are now 
>
> #python
> print(2**1)
>
>
> 

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 7:14:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 3:55:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 9:48 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:49:44 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:

 On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:45 PM Alan Grayson  
 wrote:

> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:34:59 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alan Grayson  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:

 On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

 Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I don't 
 understand his argument, no doubt my failing. 


 I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule 
 has to stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be 
 derived 
 from the linear evolution.  Somehow a probability has to be 
 introduced.  
 Once there is a probability measure, then it can be argued via 
 Gleason's 
 theorem that the only consistent measure is the Born rule.

 Brent

>>>
>>> I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one 
>>> CANNOT derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether one 
>>> affirms MWI or not, the only thing one has to work with is an ensemble 
>>> generated by measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive Born's 
>>> rule using a one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so with 
>>> many-worlds, since in operational terms -- what is observed -- the two 
>>> interpretations are indistinguishable.  AG 
>>>
>>
>> That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can move 
>> on from there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of measurements 
>> are generated, and most will give different values for the 
>> probabilities. 
>> For the observers getting the alternative data, there is nothing to tell 
>> them that they are getting the wrong answer. MWI is incoherent.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> But won't the hypothetical observers in OTHER worlds get the same 
> ensembles and thus the same distributions? AG 
>

 No, The point of MWI is that other worlds get different data.

 Bruce

>>>
>>> On each individual trial of course, with the exception that some 
>>> outcomes have the identical probability.  But since the ensembles are 
>>> generated by the same wf, I think they're identical.  AG
>>>
>>
>>
>> Think again. If there are N repetitions of the measurement with two 
>> possible outcomes, there are 2^N different sets of results. 
>>
> some sets have the same or similar frequencies, but others have very 
>> different frequencies. So many different ideas about the probabilities are 
>> obtained in different branches. The wave function does not affect this 
>> result.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> If there are only two possible outcomes in this world, won't the ensemble 
> in the unobserved world, be the complement of the ensemble in this world? 
> AG 
>

More like clones than complements.

If there is a quantum coin flip (QCF) in world w, then there are two copies 
(branches) w-0 and w-1 with w-0 and w-1 being clones of w with the 
difference being the two possible outcomes. w no longer exists.

This proceeds with N QCFs via branching to 2^N worlds w-x[1]...x[N], x[i] 
in {0,1}

So with just 1 QCFs there are now 

#python
print(2**1)

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 3:55:13 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 9:48 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
>> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:49:44 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:45 PM Alan Grayson  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:34:59 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alan Grayson  
> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I don't 
>>> understand his argument, no doubt my failing. 
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule 
>>> has to stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be 
>>> derived 
>>> from the linear evolution.  Somehow a probability has to be introduced. 
>>>  
>>> Once there is a probability measure, then it can be argued via 
>>> Gleason's 
>>> theorem that the only consistent measure is the Born rule.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one 
>> CANNOT derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether one 
>> affirms MWI or not, the only thing one has to work with is an ensemble 
>> generated by measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive Born's 
>> rule using a one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so with 
>> many-worlds, since in operational terms -- what is observed -- the two 
>> interpretations are indistinguishable.  AG 
>>
>
> That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can move on 
> from there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of measurements are 
> generated, and most will give different values for the probabilities. For 
> the observers getting the alternative data, there is nothing to tell them 
> that they are getting the wrong answer. MWI is incoherent.
>
> Bruce
>

 But won't the hypothetical observers in OTHER worlds get the same 
 ensembles and thus the same distributions? AG 

>>>
>>> No, The point of MWI is that other worlds get different data.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> On each individual trial of course, with the exception that some outcomes 
>> have the identical probability.  But since the ensembles are generated by 
>> the same wf, I think they're identical.  AG
>>
>
>
> Think again. If there are N repetitions of the measurement with two 
> possible outcomes, there are 2^N different sets of results. 
>
some sets have the same or similar frequencies, but others have very 
> different frequencies. So many different ideas about the probabilities are 
> obtained in different branches. The wave function does not affect this 
> result.
>
> Bruce
>

If there are only two possible outcomes in this world, won't the ensemble 
in the unobserved world, be the complement of the ensemble in this world? 
AG 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/da5a433b-aef4-45b9-b48b-2e521a7d5342%40googlegroups.com.

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 6:14 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On 2/14/2020 1:34 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
>
> That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can move on
> from there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of measurements are
> generated, and most will give different values for the probabilities. For
> the observers getting the alternative data, there is nothing to tell them
> that they are getting the wrong answer. MWI is incoherent.
>
>
> Since it's an interpretation, not a theory, then there's nothing to tell
> us we're getting the wrong answer either.  We only think "answers" are
> wrong if they aren't replicated.
>

Probably true... But that is exactly what happens in MWI with one branch
per outcome -- the data obtained are independent of the
amplitudes/coefficients in the original state. So only a miracle could
ensure that repeats of an experiment gave the same results. Hence, by the
"no miracles" argument, MWI is incoherent.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRMJH5hHk4-O3UDe0tE2MmHtZiEJf-PEXuLEwCirq8JwQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 2/14/2020 1:34 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alan Grayson > wrote:


On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:

On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are
incompatible. I don't understand his argument, no doubt
my failing. 



I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born
rule has to stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the SWE
and can't be derived from the linear evolution.  Somehow a
probability has to be introduced.  Once there is a probability
measure, then it can be argued via Gleason's theorem that the
only consistent measure is the Born rule.

Brent


I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one
CANNOT derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether
one affirms MWI or not, the only thing one has to work with is an
ensemble generated by measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot
derive Born's rule using a one-world theory, it would seem
impossible to do so with many-worlds, since in operational terms
-- what is observed -- the two interpretations are
indistinguishable.  AG


That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can move on 
from there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of measurements 
are generated, and most will give different values for the 
probabilities. For the observers getting the alternative data, there 
is nothing to tell them that they are getting the wrong answer. MWI is 
incoherent.


Since it's an interpretation, not a theory, then there's nothing to tell 
us we're getting the wrong answer either.  We only think "answers" are 
wrong if they aren't replicated.


Brent



Bruce


ISTM that whether we affirm one world or many worlds, all
we can ever measure is what observe in this world, and it
is from this world that we generate an ensemble after
many trials from which to observe and affirm Born's rule.
What am I missing, if anything? TIA, AG


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRkZEYAO6X%3DjPir8B%3DHVB6ddjDudRhY1-fPKtu%3DAK%3DD7w%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0a4f19e4-3391-71cf-160e-3d7dd4104a53%40verizon.net.

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 5:37:06 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>
>
> All quantum interpretations have a level of incoherence.
>
> LC
>  
>
>>

That's science in general.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-pragmatic/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopragmatism

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2ca02d39-6077-40ea-8e47-f940b7f6dbfe%40googlegroups.com.

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 3:34:59 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I don't 
>>> understand his argument, no doubt my failing. 
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule has to 
>>> stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be derived from 
>>> the linear evolution.  Somehow a probability has to be introduced.  Once 
>>> there is a probability measure, then it can be argued via Gleason's theorem 
>>> that the only consistent measure is the Born rule.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one CANNOT 
>> derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether one affirms MWI 
>> or not, the only thing one has to work with is an ensemble generated by 
>> measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive Born's rule using a 
>> one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so with many-worlds, since 
>> in operational terms -- what is observed -- the two interpretations are 
>> indistinguishable.  AG 
>>
>
> That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can move on 
> from there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of measurements are 
> generated, and most will give different values for the probabilities. For 
> the observers getting the alternative data, there is nothing to tell them 
> that they are getting the wrong answer. MWI is incoherent.
>
> Bruce
>

All quantum interpretations have a level of incoherence.

LC
 

> ISTM that whether we affirm one world or many worlds, all we can ever 
>>> measure is what observe in this world, and it is from this world that we 
>>> generate an ensemble after many trials from which to observe and affirm 
>>> Born's rule. What am I missing, if anything? TIA, AG
>>>
>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/50893916-e933-46aa-85ad-7b119ba47896%40googlegroups.com.

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 9:48 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:49:44 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:45 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:34:59 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:

 On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alan Grayson 
 wrote:

> On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I don't
>> understand his argument, no doubt my failing.
>>
>>
>> I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule has
>> to stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be derived
>> from the linear evolution.  Somehow a probability has to be introduced.
>> Once there is a probability measure, then it can be argued via Gleason's
>> theorem that the only consistent measure is the Born rule.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one
> CANNOT derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether one
> affirms MWI or not, the only thing one has to work with is an ensemble
> generated by measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive Born's
> rule using a one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so with
> many-worlds, since in operational terms -- what is observed -- the two
> interpretations are indistinguishable.  AG
>

 That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can move on
 from there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of measurements are
 generated, and most will give different values for the probabilities. For
 the observers getting the alternative data, there is nothing to tell them
 that they are getting the wrong answer. MWI is incoherent.

 Bruce

>>>
>>> But won't the hypothetical observers in OTHER worlds get the same
>>> ensembles and thus the same distributions? AG
>>>
>>
>> No, The point of MWI is that other worlds get different data.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> On each individual trial of course, with the exception that some outcomes
> have the identical probability.  But since the ensembles are generated by
> the same wf, I think they're identical.  AG
>


Think again. If there are N repetitions of the measurement with two
possible outcomes, there are 2^N different sets of results. some sets have
the same or similar frequencies, but others have very different
frequencies. So many different ideas about the probabilities are obtained
in different branches. The wave function does not affect this result.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTVTPmE%2BPCDiEEh%3DFXJRH8%2BSotxVVAaZkByf339wCg%2B-Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:49:44 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:45 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
>> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:34:59 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alan Grayson  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
> On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I don't 
> understand his argument, no doubt my failing. 
>
>
> I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule has 
> to stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be derived 
> from the linear evolution.  Somehow a probability has to be introduced.  
> Once there is a probability measure, then it can be argued via Gleason's 
> theorem that the only consistent measure is the Born rule.
>
> Brent
>

 I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one CANNOT 
 derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether one affirms 
 MWI 
 or not, the only thing one has to work with is an ensemble generated by 
 measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive Born's rule using a 
 one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so with many-worlds, 
 since 
 in operational terms -- what is observed -- the two interpretations are 
 indistinguishable.  AG 

>>>
>>> That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can move on 
>>> from there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of measurements are 
>>> generated, and most will give different values for the probabilities. For 
>>> the observers getting the alternative data, there is nothing to tell them 
>>> that they are getting the wrong answer. MWI is incoherent.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> But won't the hypothetical observers in OTHER worlds get the same 
>> ensembles and thus the same distributions? AG 
>>
>
> No, The point of MWI is that other worlds get different data.
>
> Bruce
>

On each individual trial of course, with the exception that some outcomes 
have the identical probability.  But since the ensembles are generated by 
the same wf, I think they're identical.  AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a9474168-3a46-4e10-bdc2-aef8c139a7ff%40googlegroups.com.

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:45 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:34:59 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:

 On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

 Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I don't
 understand his argument, no doubt my failing.


 I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule has
 to stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be derived
 from the linear evolution.  Somehow a probability has to be introduced.
 Once there is a probability measure, then it can be argued via Gleason's
 theorem that the only consistent measure is the Born rule.

 Brent

>>>
>>> I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one CANNOT
>>> derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether one affirms MWI
>>> or not, the only thing one has to work with is an ensemble generated by
>>> measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive Born's rule using a
>>> one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so with many-worlds, since
>>> in operational terms -- what is observed -- the two interpretations are
>>> indistinguishable.  AG
>>>
>>
>> That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can move on
>> from there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of measurements are
>> generated, and most will give different values for the probabilities. For
>> the observers getting the alternative data, there is nothing to tell them
>> that they are getting the wrong answer. MWI is incoherent.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> But won't the hypothetical observers in OTHER worlds get the same
> ensembles and thus the same distributions? AG
>

No, The point of MWI is that other worlds get different data.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQVSRr8pbSQxTxtt-n06n0d3x0nr-UQfEMOAB_ufyUEig%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 2:34:59 AM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I don't 
>>> understand his argument, no doubt my failing. 
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule has to 
>>> stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be derived from 
>>> the linear evolution.  Somehow a probability has to be introduced.  Once 
>>> there is a probability measure, then it can be argued via Gleason's theorem 
>>> that the only consistent measure is the Born rule.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one CANNOT 
>> derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether one affirms MWI 
>> or not, the only thing one has to work with is an ensemble generated by 
>> measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive Born's rule using a 
>> one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so with many-worlds, since 
>> in operational terms -- what is observed -- the two interpretations are 
>> indistinguishable.  AG 
>>
>
> That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can move on 
> from there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of measurements are 
> generated, and most will give different values for the probabilities. For 
> the observers getting the alternative data, there is nothing to tell them 
> that they are getting the wrong answer. MWI is incoherent.
>
> Bruce
>

But won't the hypothetical observers in OTHER worlds get the same ensembles 
and thus the same distributions? AG 

> ISTM that whether we affirm one world or many worlds, all we can ever 
>>> measure is what observe in this world, and it is from this world that we 
>>> generate an ensemble after many trials from which to observe and affirm 
>>> Born's rule. What am I missing, if anything? TIA, AG
>>>
>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/22f1764a-21c3-42dd-a106-f5b4c97771fe%40googlegroups.com.

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:56 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I don't
>> understand his argument, no doubt my failing.
>>
>>
>> I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule has to
>> stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be derived from
>> the linear evolution.  Somehow a probability has to be introduced.  Once
>> there is a probability measure, then it can be argued via Gleason's theorem
>> that the only consistent measure is the Born rule.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one CANNOT
> derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether one affirms MWI
> or not, the only thing one has to work with is an ensemble generated by
> measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive Born's rule using a
> one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so with many-worlds, since
> in operational terms -- what is observed -- the two interpretations are
> indistinguishable.  AG
>

That's quite an astute observation, Alan. The thing is, we can move on from
there. If Many-worlds is true, all possible sets of measurements are
generated, and most will give different values for the probabilities. For
the observers getting the alternative data, there is nothing to tell them
that they are getting the wrong answer. MWI is incoherent.

Bruce

> ISTM that whether we affirm one world or many worlds, all we can ever
>> measure is what observe in this world, and it is from this world that we
>> generate an ensemble after many trials from which to observe and affirm
>> Born's rule. What am I missing, if anything? TIA, AG
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRkZEYAO6X%3DjPir8B%3DHVB6ddjDudRhY1-fPKtu%3DAK%3DD7w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I don't 
> understand his argument, no doubt my failing. 
>
>
> I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule has to 
> stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be derived from 
> the linear evolution.  Somehow a probability has to be introduced.  Once 
> there is a probability measure, then it can be argued via Gleason's theorem 
> that the only consistent measure is the Born rule.
>
> Brent
>

I think what Bruce is trying to show, is that using the MWI, one CANNOT 
derive Born's rule as claimed by its advocates. But whether one affirms MWI 
or not, the only thing one has to work with is an ensemble generated by 
measurements in THIS world. So if you cannot derive Born's rule using a 
one-world theory, it would seem impossible to do so with many-worlds, since 
in operational terms -- what is observed -- the two interpretations are 
indistinguishable.  AG 

>
> ISTM that whether we affirm one world or many worlds, all we can ever 
> measure is what observe in this world, and it is from this world that we 
> generate an ensemble after many trials from which to observe and affirm 
> Born's rule. What am I missing, if anything? TIA, AG
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1b4c467f-17bd-4438-aa05-1e9db3cb7562%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/122e8820-b97d-4f03-8250-7a0b421b9fa3%40googlegroups.com.

Re: MWI and Born's rule / Bruce

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 2/13/2020 1:17 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


Bruce argues that the MWI and Born's rule are incompatible. I
don't understand his argument, no doubt my failing. 



I don't think they are incompatible; it's just that the Born rule has to 
stuck in somehow.  It's not implicit in the SWE and can't be derived 
from the linear evolution.  Somehow a probability has to be introduced.  
Once there is a probability measure, then it can be argued via Gleason's 
theorem that the only consistent measure is the Born rule.


Brent


ISTM that whether we affirm one world or many worlds, all we can
ever measure is what observe in this world, and it is from this
world that we generate an ensemble after many trials from which to
observe and affirm Born's rule. What am I missing, if anything?
TIA, AG

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1b4c467f-17bd-4438-aa05-1e9db3cb7562%40googlegroups.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cd4823fa-6026-5489-a4a3-a4877c2b56f2%40verizon.net.