Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

Sean (and some other physicists) do not think either that that matter exists, or that it is what reality is made of. Or, they will say it (matter) exists, but it is defined in terms of information: Information (not matter) is what reality is made of. If matter can be continual

Re: Stochastic spacetime

On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:03:05 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > These ideas run into an empirical problem. As I have indicated before, > data on the arrival times of photons of different wavelengths from burstars > indicates spacetime is incredibly smooth. It is smoother than the

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

It seems to me that the best one can do is say that energy is conserved in each branch, even over splitting. That is, after all, what is observed. Consequently, the energy of the overall wave function is not conserved. This might cause some problems for the insistence on unitary evolution of t

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 11/26/2019 7:51 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: A standard objection to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics concerns energy conservation. When the universe splits on some quantum event and a new branch(world) is created, where does the energy come from? Sean Carroll tackles thi

Energy conservation in many-worlds

A standard objection to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics concerns energy conservation. When the universe splits on some quantum event and a new branch(world) is created, where does the energy come from? Sean Carroll tackles this question on page 173 of his new book. But I am

Re: Stochastic spacetime

These ideas run into an empirical problem. As I have indicated before, data on the arrival times of photons of different wavelengths from burstars indicates spacetime is incredibly smooth. It is smoother than the Planck scale by 1:50. There is no foam, graininess or discontinuous properties at

Re: The problem with physics

On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 11:04 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 20 Nov 2019, at 14:51, John Clark wrote: > > > "*R**ealism is "counterfactual definiteness", the idea that it is > possible to meaningfully describe as definite the result of a measurement > which, in fact, has not been performed (i.e. t

Re: Branching on real-world decisions

On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 12:27 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 25 Nov 2019, at 22:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > Because, the wave-function itself is non-local -- it contains entangled > particles that are widely separated in space. That is the definition of > non-locality! > > > I am not sure. I use

Re: The problem with physics

On 11/26/2019 4:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Nov 2019, at 18:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to  interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical co

Re: The problem with physics

On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 7:11 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> in Bruno's idiotic > > > *> The insult again. * > The observation again. >> thought exparament because there is no way to determine who won and who >> lost or even nail down exactly what the bet was about, > > > *> No less than in the Eve

Re: The problem with physics

> On 25 Nov 2019, at 20:41, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 9:08:49 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 19 Nov 2019, at 16:48, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> In my own formulation >> >>Program >>Language >>Translation >>Object >>

Re: Branching on real-world decisions

> On 25 Nov 2019, at 22:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 1:31 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > On 22 Nov 2019, at 08:35, Bruce Kellett > > wrote: > > > > I have been reading Sean Carroll's book "Something Deeply Hidd

Re: C60 Interference

On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 12:10:26 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 11:01:17 AM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/17/2019 11:07 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> > >> > I forget if I raised this issue here or on another thread. I am >> > beginning to dou

Re: The problem with physics

> On 22 Nov 2019, at 09:09, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > Well... maybe when you are a 50 years old scientist, you can say that, but > this is not the spirit in which science is teached to children or popularized > to laymen. The spirit of science popularization is that it g

Re: The problem with physics

> On 21 Nov 2019, at 18:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they > mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with > the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes

Re: The problem with physics

> On 21 Nov 2019, at 09:54, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > Models are the myths we invent to navigate nature (reality). Theories are such “myth” (using the logician’s terminology). We need them to do anything. The intended model of those theories is the reality, that we search. We don’t kno

Re: The problem with physics

> On 21 Nov 2019, at 00:28, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 3:00:35 PM UTC-7, scerir wrote: >> Nevertheless, the SWE does not give a probability without some further >> assumptions. Why do you think that MWI advocates spend so much time an >> effort trying to d

Re: The problem with physics

> On 20 Nov 2019, at 23:52, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 2:42 PM 'Brent Meeker' > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: > > >>> The problem is not how to calculate probabilities, it's what do the > >>> probabilities refer to. > > >> The best betting str

Re: The problem with physics

> On 20 Nov 2019, at 14:51, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 12:50 AM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > >>> I thought one of the attractions of the many worlds theory was that it > >>> was realistic -- in the sense that the wave function really exists a a

Re: The problem with physics

> On 19 Nov 2019, at 20:18, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 11/19/2019 6:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 18 Nov 2019, at 22:14, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/18/2019 12:20 PM,

Re: Branching on real-world decisions

On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 7:30:46 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Friday, November 22, 2019 at 1:36:05 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >> >> I have been reading Sean Carroll's book "Something Deeply Hidden". It is >> more reasonable than some of the commentary had led me to believe. The >