On 3/14/2022 7:11 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 8:50 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:
/> The only problem is saying this is a local effect because the
probability of passing or not at Bob's must be correlated with
what happened at Alice's spacelike measurement. If you say
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 8:50 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
* > The only problem is saying this is a local effect because the
> probability of passing or not at Bob's must be correlated with what
> happened at Alice's spacelike measurement. If you say they are local that
> implies they are indpendent
Forgetting polarizers, why not go back to Everett and Schrodinger and Wigner,
and identify who is doing the watching?
-Original Message-
From: John Clark
To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2022 6:35 pm
Subject: Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as
Neither is Occam's razor, Telmo, yet its a tool of observation. Observation of
course is central to science, measuring in precise, emergent units, all that
fun stuff. Deciding if possibly MWI is the same thing as Eternal Inflation
(Guth, Linde, Vilenkin, Tegmark) and how can we (drumroll)
It comes down to deciding on if MWI can ever be detected or uncovered, and what
sort of effort, if possible. would it take to falsify (Yeah Karl Popper) MWI.
Dismissing out of hand is a personal decision, not an intellectual one. Most
people don't like getting deep in the weeds of physics
On 3/14/2022 3:35 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 6:05 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:
>> If by "redundant" you mean identical then no split has occurred
> /These branches are not identical. They correspond to the
different possible results of Bob's measurements./
On 3/14/2022 2:27 PM, smitra wrote:
On 12-03-2022 19:56, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 3/12/2022 8:33 AM, smitra wrote:
On 12-03-2022 02:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 11:19 AM smitra wrote:
The different possible outcomes may exist in different worlds, but
the
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 10:24 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 6:50 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
>>
>> *>But they do give results that disagree with quantum mechanics.*
>>
>
> You're just repeating yourself, I asked for specifics, I want to know
> exactly what observer sees what
On 3/14/2022 4:09 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Am Mo, 14. Mär 2022, um 10:42, schrieb Alan Grayson:
On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 3:25:08 AM UTC-6 telmo wrote:
Am Mo, 14. Mär 2022, um 02:41, schrieb Alan Grayson:
Aside from the fact that it's in bad taste,
The truth is often
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 6:50 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> If by "redundant" you mean identical then no split has occurred
>>>
>>> > *These branches are not identical. They correspond to the
>>> different possible results of Bob's measurements.*
>>>
>>
>> Then they're not redundant.
>>
>
>
On 3/14/2022 3:04 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 9:41 PM Alan Grayson
wrote:
/> Aside from the fact that it's in bad taste,/
Don't complain to me about that, complain to Mr. Schrodinger and tell
him he got his equation all wrong.
Schroedinger's equation is only one
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 9:35 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 6:05 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> >> If by "redundant" you mean identical then no split has occurred
>>>
>>
>> > *These branches are not identical. They correspond to the
>> different possible results of Bob's
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 6:05 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> If by "redundant" you mean identical then no split has occurred
>>
>
> > *These branches are not identical. They correspond to the
> different possible results of Bob's measurements.*
>
Then they're not redundant.
*> In those situations
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 8:53 AM smitra wrote:
> On 12-03-2022 23:06, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >
> > Sure, in MWI there is a vast superposition. The trouble I see is that
> > there are just too many branches. Many of the Bob branches that any
> > Alice branch sees will not give the quantum
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 8:55 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 5:38 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> > *after N trials, there are 2^N copies of Bob that meet each copy of
>> Alice. Whereas only one Bob is needed in each Alice sector to fulfil the
>> requirements of quantum mechanics.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 5:38 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
> *after N trials, there are 2^N copies of Bob that meet each copy of
> Alice. Whereas only one Bob is needed in each Alice sector to fulfil the
> requirements of quantum mechanics. Where do all the redundant, incorrect,
> branches go?*
If
On 12-03-2022 23:06, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 3:33 AM smitra wrote:
On 12-03-2022 02:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Alice and Bob independently make their measurements and record
their
results. They then send each other these results by email -- they
need
never meet in
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 8:28 AM smitra wrote:
> On 12-03-2022 19:56, Brent Meeker wrote:
> >
> > Which we used to call "collapse of the wave-function".
> >
> > Brent
>
> In the MWI it's the observer that becomes entangled with the system, and
> that's obviously a local process. Bob's measurement
On 12-03-2022 19:56, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 3/12/2022 8:33 AM, smitra wrote:
On 12-03-2022 02:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 11:19 AM smitra wrote:
The different possible outcomes may exist in different worlds, but
the
correlations are always measured in just one world.
Am Mo, 14. Mär 2022, um 15:50, schrieb Alan Grayson:
>
>
> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 5:09:51 AM UTC-6 telmo wrote:
>> Am Mo, 14. Mär 2022, um 10:42, schrieb Alan Grayson:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 3:25:08 AM UTC-6 telmo wrote:
Am Mo, 14. Mär 2022, um 02:41,
On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 5:09:51 AM UTC-6 telmo wrote:
> Am Mo, 14. Mär 2022, um 10:42, schrieb Alan Grayson:
>
>
>
> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 3:25:08 AM UTC-6 telmo wrote:
>
>
>
> Am Mo, 14. Mär 2022, um 02:41, schrieb Alan Grayson:
>
> Aside from the fact that it's in bad taste,
>
>
Am Mo, 14. Mär 2022, um 10:42, schrieb Alan Grayson:
>
>
> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 3:25:08 AM UTC-6 telmo wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am Mo, 14. Mär 2022, um 02:41, schrieb Alan Grayson:
>>> Aside from the fact that it's in bad taste,
>>
>> The truth is often distasteful. I know religious
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 6:54 AM Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> MWI predicts all the worlds that are consistent with Schrodinger's
>> equation and predicts exactly ZERO worlds that are inconsistent with it.
>>
>
> *> It is clear that you have not made any effort to understand the
> argument.*
>
I've
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 9:51 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 6:37 AM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> *> The point is that many worlds generates far too many worlds that give
>> results that contradict quantum mechanics. And it has no way of getting rid
>> of those incorrect worlds.*
>
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 6:37 AM Bruce Kellett wrote:
*> The point is that many worlds generates far too many worlds that give
> results that contradict quantum mechanics. And it has no way of getting rid
> of those incorrect worlds.*
MWI predicts all the worlds that are consistent with
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 9:04 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 9:41 PM Alan Grayson
> wrote:
>
> *> Aside from the fact that it's in bad taste,*
>
>
> Don't complain to me about that, complain to Mr. Schrodinger and tell
> him he got his equation all wrong.
>
His equation is all
On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 9:41 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
*> Aside from the fact that it's in bad taste,*
Don't complain to me about that, complain to Mr. Schrodinger and tell him
he got his equation all wrong.
> * > it can't be verified or disconfirmed, so it's not a scientific theory.
> AG*
On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 3:25:08 AM UTC-6 telmo wrote:
>
>
> Am Mo, 14. Mär 2022, um 02:41, schrieb Alan Grayson:
>
> Aside from the fact that it's in bad taste,
>
>
> The truth is often distasteful. I know religious conservative people who
> reject Darwinian evolution purely on the
Am Mo, 14. Mär 2022, um 02:41, schrieb Alan Grayson:
> Aside from the fact that it's in bad taste,
The truth is often distasteful. I know religious conservative people who reject
Darwinian evolution purely on the grounds that they find it in bad taste to
suggest that we are close relatives
29 matches
Mail list logo
