On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 18:12, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 5:50 PM Stathis Papaioannou
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 15:55, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/20/2021 6:13 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>>
>>> The probabilities come from the fact that observers consider
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 5:50 PM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 15:55, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>> On 12/20/2021 6:13 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>> The probabilities come from the fact that observers consider themselves
>> unique individuals persisting through time.
>>
On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 15:55, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 12/20/2021 6:13 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 12:05, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 12/20/2021 4:19 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 09:56, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>>>
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 4:40 PM Jesse Mazer wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 8:10 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 11:53 AM Jesse Mazer
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> But one of the big selling points of the MWI is to give some sort of
>>> objective picture of reality in which
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 8:10 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 11:53 AM Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 7:01 PM John Clark wrote:
>>
>>> Brent Meeker Wrote:
>>>
>>> *> Yes, it's empirically supported; So's the Schroedinger equation.
But it's part of the
On 12/20/2021 7:32 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 7:50 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:
> MWI is completely deterministic, including the prediction that all
possibilities occur.
True.
/> So you have to have some assumption to get probabilities, such
that one thing
On 12/20/2021 6:13 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 12:05, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/20/2021 4:19 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 09:56, Brent Meeker
wrote:
On 12/20/2021 7:17 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec
On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 14:32, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 7:50 PM Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
> > MWI is completely deterministic, including the prediction that all
>> possibilities occur.
>>
>
> True.
>
>
>> *> So you have to have some assumption to get probabilities, such that
>>
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 7:50 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
> MWI is completely deterministic, including the prediction that all
> possibilities occur.
>
True.
> *> So you have to have some assumption to get probabilities, such that one
> thing happens and others don't. *
>
Yes, that is the one
On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 12:05, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 12/20/2021 4:19 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 09:56, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>> On 12/20/2021 7:17 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 10:38 PM Brent Meeker
>> wrote:
>>
>>> *> >> It
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 12:36 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 12/20/2021 5:10 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 11:53 AM Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 7:01 PM John Clark wrote:
>>
>>> Brent Meeker Wrote:
>>>
>>> *> Yes, it's empirically supported; So's the
On 12/20/2021 5:10 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 11:53 AM Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 7:01 PM John Clark
wrote:
Brent Meeker Wrote:
/> Yes, it's empirically supported; So's the
Schroedinger equation. But
On 12/20/2021 4:52 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 7:01 PM John Clark wrote:
Brent Meeker Wrote:
/> Yes, it's empirically supported; So's the Schroedinger
equation. But it's part of the application of the
Schroedinger equation. It's not
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 11:53 AM Jesse Mazer wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 7:01 PM John Clark wrote:
>
>> Brent Meeker Wrote:
>>
>> *> Yes, it's empirically supported; So's the Schroedinger equation. But
>>> it's part of the application of the Schroedinger equation. It's not in the
>>>
On 12/20/2021 4:19 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 09:56, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/20/2021 7:17 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 10:38 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:
/> >> It also makes the assumption that the
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 7:01 PM John Clark wrote:
> Brent Meeker Wrote:
>
> *> Yes, it's empirically supported; So's the Schroedinger equation. But
>> it's part of the application of the Schroedinger equation. It's not in the
>> equation itself. *
>
>
> > I don't know what you mean by that.
On 12/20/2021 4:00 PM, John Clark wrote:
Brent Meeker Wrote:
/> Yes, it's empirically supported; So's the Schroedinger
equation. But it's part of the application of the Schroedinger
equation. It's not in the equation itself. /
> I don't know what you mean by that.
On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 09:56, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> On 12/20/2021 7:17 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 10:38 PM Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
>> *> >> It also makes the assumption that the eigenvalues of a measurement
are realized probabilistically.*
>>>
>>>
>> >> What is the
Brent Meeker Wrote:
*> Yes, it's empirically supported; So's the Schroedinger equation. But
> it's part of the application of the Schroedinger equation. It's not in the
> equation itself. *
> I don't know what you mean by that.
*> It's the projection postulate in the Copenhagen
On 12/20/2021 7:17 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 10:38 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:
/> >> It also makes the assumption that the eigenvalues
of a measurement are realized probabilistically./
>> What is the eigenvalueof a temperature of 72°F? It
The Born rule, understood as probabilities are predicted by state vector
amplitudes squared, is not a problem. Gleason's theorem shows that this
is the only mathematically consistent probability measure on a Hilbert
space. The other part of the Born rule, that QM results/are
probabilistic
On 12/20/2021 1:03 AM, smitra wrote:
On 20-12-2021 03:05, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 12:23 PM John Clark
wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 7:59 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:
On 12/19/2021 5:25 AM, John Clark wrote:
By contrast the Many Worlds Theory only makes one assumption,
When you say the MWI + Born rule "yields an unambiguous framework for
a fundamental
theory" are you assuming the idea of probability being equal to amplitude
squared only applies to "measurements", or that it would somehow apply at
all times in the MWI? If the former there would seem to be some
On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 10:38 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
> *> >> It also makes the assumption that the eigenvalues of a measurement
>>> are realized probabilistically.*
>>
>>
> >> What is the eigenvalue of a temperature of 72°F? It doesn't have one. A
>> measurement doesn't have an eigenvalue but a
On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 10:04 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:
*>>> The Born Rule cannot be derived from the Schrodinger equation; it has
>>> to be added as a further independent assumption. So it is not true that
>>> Many Worlds makes only one assumption.*
>>>
>>
>> >> No quantum interpretation needs to
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 7:29 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> Without invoking MWI which I adore, let us focus upon the less grandiose
> and ask can one entangle a tardigrade or can't one?
>
>
>
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 8:03 PM smitra wrote:
> On 20-12-2021 03:05, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> > The Born Rule cannot be derived from the Schrodinger equation; it has
> > to be added as a further independent assumption. So it is not true
> > that Many Worlds makes only one assumption. It requires
On 20-12-2021 03:05, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 12:23 PM John Clark
wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 7:59 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:
On 12/19/2021 5:25 AM, John Clark wrote:
By contrast the Many Worlds Theory only makes one assumption,
Schrodinger's Equation means what it says.
Without invoking MWI which I adore, let us focus upon the less grandiose and
ask can one entangle a tardigrade or can't one?
https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-claim-they-ve-entangled-a-tardigrade-with-qubits-but-did-they
-Original Message-
From: Brent Meeker
To:
29 matches
Mail list logo
