Re: NYTimes.com: A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong

On Sun, Apr 14, 2024 at 5:53 PM Jesse Mazer wrote: *> "The article > at > https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/04/dark-energy-might-not-be-constant-after-all/ > <https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/04/dark-energy-might-not-be-constant-after-all/> > says: 'One a

Re: NYTimes.com: A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong

The article at https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/04/dark-energy-might-not-be-constant-after-all/ says: 'One alternative theory proposes that the universe may be filled with a fluctuating form of dark energy dubbed “quintessence.” There are also several other alternative models that assume

Re: NYTimes.com: A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong

On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 6:00 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > "*The next question will be what causes DE to change?"* That is a very good question but nobody has a very good answer, but at least now we know that's the correct question to ask. Assuming of course this result holds up and dark energy

Re: NYTimes.com: A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong

"If the work of dark energy were constant over time, it would eventually push all the stars and galaxies so far apart that even atoms would be torn asunder,..." That's not true.  The estimated strength of dark energy, w=-1, implied that galaxy clusters and any smaller groups w

NYTimes.com: A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong

Explore this gift article from The New York Times. You can read it for free without a subscription. A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong Scientists may have discovered a major flaw in their understanding of that mysterious cosmic force. That could be good news

Tesla’s Dojo Supercomputer Breaks All Established Industry Standards

that writes better AI programs, I wonder if that iteration could produce any interesting consequences? Tesla’s Dojo Supercomputer Breaks All Established Industry Standards <https://cleantechnica.com/2021/08/22/teslas-dojo-supercomputer-breaks-all-established-industry-standards-cleantechnica-deep-d

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

> On 10 Oct 2019, at 23:43, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 2:16 AM Bruno Marchal <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > > After all the ducking and weaving below, Bruno, I must reluctantly come to > the conclusion that you are not actu

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

> On 8 Oct 2019, at 20:19, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 10/8/2019 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 6 Oct 2019, at 19:33, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/6/2019 1:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: When Alice and Bob are

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

some theory > explaining it. Yes. Physics is the best science to make precise prediction, but it still require a non mechanist theory of mind. With mechanism, we have “just” to extract physics from all computations, so that the physical-empirical predictions corresponds to the arithmetic

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 2:16 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: After all the ducking and weaving below, Bruno, I must reluctantly come to the conclusion that you are not actually interested in engaging with the issues that I have raised. I suspect that, like Wallace in his book, you have done so

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

ovided an >> alternative explanation. > > I don’t believe in MW “I”. MW is just quantum mechanics without collapse. > There is just one unitary evolution, which computable, even linear, and > always local in the Hilbert space. > > Local or non-local applies to physical 3-

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

> On 8 Oct 2019, at 14:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:29 PM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > On 6 Oct 2019, at 12:46, Bruce Kellett > wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:23 PM Bruno Marchal > >

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

>>> Well, I have looked at your "explanations", and at a lot of other MWI >>> so-called explanations, and not one of them has been satisfactory. These >>> "explanations" are either hopelessly vague, or they misunderstand what is >>> required, or, like

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On 10/8/2019 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 6 Oct 2019, at 19:33, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On 10/6/2019 1:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: When Alice and Bob are separated, and measure their particles state, the MWI only ask that whatever they found will be correlated. In

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On 10/8/2019 4:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: We might interpret the wave differently. Of course, from what I have proven about “digital mechanism”, I expect physics describing only the physical reality we access to. The wave is epistemic, not ontic. I think that your problem is that you

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 6:25:14 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > MW is just quantum mechanics without collapse. > > Bruno > > That's what Sean Carroll says, but he doesn't mention or know anything about quantum measure theory or quantum probability theory. @philipthrift --

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

al in the Hilbert space. > Local or non-local applies to physical 3-space, or space-time -- using the word for Hilbert space is just a confusion. There are no space-time intervals in Hilbert space -- the metric is all wrong. > The violation of Bell’s inequality shows the inseparability, or

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:29 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 6 Oct 2019, at 12:46, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:23 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 5 Oct 2019, at 13:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> Let us start again. Consider the entangled singlet state that we have >>> been

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

t > answer the question. > > > Well, I have looked at your "explanations", and at a lot of other MWI >> so-called explanations, and not one of them has been satisfactory. These >> "explanations" are either hopelessly vague, or they misunderstand what is >

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

> On 6 Oct 2019, at 19:33, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 10/6/2019 1:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> When Alice and Bob are separated, and measure their particles state, the MWI >> only ask that whatever they found will be correlated. In the world where >> Alice

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

> >> Well, I have looked at your "explanations", and at a lot of other MWI >> so-called explanations, and not one of them has been satisfactory. These >> "explanations" are either hopelessly vague, or they misunderstand what is >> required, or, like Wa

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

> On 6 Oct 2019, at 12:46, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:23 PM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > On 5 Oct 2019, at 13:05, Bruce Kellett > wrote: >>> Let us start again. Consider the entangled singlet state that we have been

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

shows the inseparability, or non-locality, but there is no FTL influence. It is up in the believer in FTL influence to shows them, but as you told me that you don’t believe in FTL influences, I am not sure what we are discussing. Now, I do believe that QM-with-collapse does introduce FTL influence, even in the ca

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

;explanations", and at a lot of other MWI >>> so-called explanations, and not one of them has been satisfactory. These >>> "explanations" are either hopelessly vague, or they misunderstand what is >>> required, or, like Wallace, they simply wimp out of any e

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

Wallace, they simply wimp out of any explanation at all. If you can do better, then do it. But despite years of asking, you still have not come up with any credible explanation. It is the same as the one in Price FAQ, or in  Tipler’s paper, and it is coheren

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 1:38:37 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/6/2019 1:53 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > That is, as they say, it. Notice you don’t see anything about worlds in > there. The worlds are there whether you like it or not, sitting in Hilbert > space, waiting to see

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On 10/6/2019 1:53 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: That is, as they say, it. Notice you don’t see anything about worlds in there. The worlds are there whether you like it or not, sitting in Hilbert space, waiting to see whether /*they become actualized in the course of the evolution.*/ What

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 12:43:05 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/6/2019 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 6 Oct 2019, at 02:50, Russell Standish > wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 09:05:49PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >>> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 7:15 PM Bruno

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On 10/6/2019 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 6 Oct 2019, at 02:50, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 09:05:49PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 7:15 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: On 5 Oct 2019, at 07:14, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sat, Oct 5, 2019

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On 10/6/2019 1:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: When Alice and Bob are separated, and measure their particles state, the MWI only ask that whatever they found will be correlated. In the world where Alice finds “up", Bob will find "down", and in the world where Alice finds “down”Bob will find

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

d. >> >> http://settheory.net/many-worlds >> >> The idea is to dismiss the reality of the collapse, consider that the >> deterministic evolution without collapse is all what happens, and admit a >> persisting coexistence of all possibilities in parallel wor

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

ut. >> >> Bruce >> > > EPR and Many Worlds has been "worked out" many rimes before, but hasn't > really changed the world. > > http://settheory.net/many-worlds > > The idea is to dismiss the reality of the collapse, consider that the > deterministic ev

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

> > > Well, I have looked at your "explanations", and at a lot of other MWI >> so-called explanations, and not one of them has been satisfactory. These >> "explanations" are either hopelessly vague, or they misunderstand what is >> required, or, like

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

lanations" are either hopelessly vague, or they misunderstand what is > required, or, like Wallace, they simply wimp out of any explanation at all. > If you can do better, then do it. But despite years of asking, you still > have not come up with any credible explanation. > > > It is t

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:23 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 5 Oct 2019, at 13:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > Let us start again. Consider the entangled singlet state that we have been >> talking about: >> >> |psi> = (|+>|-> - |->|+>)/sqrt(2). >> >> This refers to two spacetime locations; >> >>

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

see whether they become actualized in the course of the evolution. Notice, also, that these postulates are eminently testable — indeed, even falsifiable! And once you make them (and you accept an appropriate “past hypothesis,” just as in statistical mechanics, and are considering a sufficien

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

t that a single world assumption turns a > > nonlocal state into FTL "influence", the mechanism of which is quite > > unimaginable as you point out. An argument by incredulity, as it were, > > for the MWI. > > Exactly. > It is not an indirect argument f

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

> On 6 Oct 2019, at 02:50, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 09:05:49PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 7:15 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>On 5 Oct 2019, at 07:14, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> >>On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 1:10 AM Bruno Marchal

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

t that influence propagate at a speed slower than light, > but successive entanglement “contagion”. > >> Then you say "Everyone will agree...no influence has to occur.” > > You confuse the Bobs to whom Alice can access, to the all Bobs, including > those Alice will never

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 09:05:49PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 7:15 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 5 Oct 2019, at 07:14, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 1:10 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > According to the above non-separable

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 6:49:42 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/5/2019 11:16 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 10:17:20 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/4/2019 11:31 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 6:22:07 PM

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On 10/5/2019 11:16 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 10:17:20 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 10/4/2019 11:31 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 6:22:07 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: You can't deny Hilbert space and keep MWI.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 10:17:20 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/4/2019 11:31 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 6:22:07 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> You can't deny >> Hilbert space and keep MWI. >> >> >> Brent >> >> > > > QMT is neither (defined

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On 10/4/2019 11:31 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 6:22:07 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: You can't deny Hilbert space and keep MWI. Brent QMT is neither (defined by) Hilbert space nor (MWI) many worlds. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.10427.pdf : Quantum

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

nges the 'map of accessible reality' of Bob”. > > > Yes, of course, but that influence propagate at a speed slower than light, > but successive entanglement “contagion”. > > Then you say "Everyone will agree...no influence has to occur.” > > > You confuse the Bobs to wh

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

course, but that influence propagate at a speed slower than light, but successive entanglement “contagion”. > Then you say "Everyone will agree...no influence has to occur.” You confuse the Bobs to whom Alice can access, to the all Bobs, including those Alice will never been able t

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

No. That, in the MWI is merely the projection onto one subspace, I agree. > the subspace in which the observers and instruments all register a particular > measurement result. The state in Hilbert space has projections on other > subspaces in which other results are seen. This idea o

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

> On 5 Oct 2019, at 01:15, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 10/4/2019 8:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> I certainly missed the point! I cannot make much sense of the sentence "The >> wave function itself is non-local”. > > The wave-function of two entangled EPR

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 6:22:07 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > You can't deny > Hilbert space and keep MWI. > > > Brent > > QMT is neither (defined by) Hilbert space nor (MWI) many worlds. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.10427.pdf : Quantum Measure Theory (QMT) , at its basis, takes

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

ntradict yourself, Bruno. You say "when Alice do a measurement she influences and changes the 'map of accessible reality' of Bob". Then you say "Everyone will agree...no influence has to occur." I think your complete failure to understand the non-local entangled state -- the fact

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

on onto one subspace, the subspace in which the observers and instruments all register a particular measurement result.  The state in Hilbert space has projections on other subspaces in which other results are seen. This idea of the state in Hilbert space is essential to MWI.  You can't deny Hilber

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On 10/4/2019 8:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I certainly missed the point! I cannot make much sense of the sentence "The wave function itself is non-local”. The wave-function of two entangled EPR particles is a function of two variables, which are space-like separate locations. Brent --

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

> On 3 Oct 2019, at 18:37, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 10/3/2019 2:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> No, Bruce's point is that it must be present at the start. Otherwise Bell's >>> inequality couldn't be violated. >> Bruce agree that there is no FTL action, that is

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

e non-locality. That is the way it is -- > it will always refer inevitably to two separate spacetime locations. We do interpret the state very differently. I have no problem with labelling such a state “non-local”, but I interpret it as a set of universe where the particles are correlated, in

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

in's paper: > > I suggest you read Carroll's book. And by the way, Maudlin believes that > time's arrow and all the laws of physics are primitive, that is to say they > can not be reduced to something else, certainly not to arithmetic. Can you give the reference?

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On 10/3/2019 2:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No, Bruce's point is that it must be present at the start. Otherwise Bell's inequality couldn't be violated. Bruce agree that there is no FTL action, that is locality. The non locality is in the perspective view. It is not a global truth, as that

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

it is -- it will always refer inevitably to two separate spacetime locations. As Wallace reports Deutsch to have said: "quantum theory is a theory of local interactions with non-local states." So with EPR correlations, the state is intrinsically non-local but all the measurement interact

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

ly one definite state. > *I still 'really' have no idea what you mean by' realism'.* Which word didn't you understand? > *> I suggest you read Maudlin's paper:* > I suggest you read Carroll's book. And by the way, Maudlin believes that time's arrow and all the laws o

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

exist but exist in one and only one definite state even when they are > not being observed; so whatever else it may be Many Worlds is not realistic. > And we know for a experimental fact that Bell's inequality is violated, > therefore simple algebra forces us to conclude that at leas

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

> On 1 Oct 2019, at 19:37, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 10/1/2019 4:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 1 Oct 2019, at 07:37, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9/30/2019 9:52 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: I haven't read Carroll's

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

> On 1 Oct 2019, at 19:24, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 10:04:22 AM UTC-5, smitra wrote: > So, the best way to interpret the > multiverse is to simply assume that all possible time snaps of universes > exist as timeless entiti

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

the light) is going to appear coherent, > > but it's still going to be inconsistent with the opposite result and zero > > out cross terms in the density matrix. That's essentially what the > > mathematical process of taking the reduced trace does. > > Right. Then the non locali

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

e > law of conservation of mass/energy. But Many Worlds is not unique in that > regard; *ALL* modern cosmological theories violate the conservation of > mass/energy, they MUST. Noether's Theorem says if things generally look > about the same from one time period to another then

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 6:53 AM John Clark wrote: > > And local hidden variables are ruled out by experiment *only* if you > assume things are realistic. Well OK... technically you also have to assume > things are not Superdeterministic, but if that's not a reasonable > assumption nothing is. >

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 3:39 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> exparament has proven beyond doubt that Bell's inequality is WRONG. > > > * > You mean Bell's inequality is violated by quantum entanglements* > No, I mean only that Bell's

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

ic. > /Bell's result is a theorem, not a conjecture. / Yes, Bell's inequality is a theorem that can be derived using just high school algebra starting from the assumptions that things are local and things are realistic. /> And that theorem is valid in MWI as in all other interp

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

that can be derived using just high school algebra starting from the assumptions that things are local and things are realistic. *> And that theorem is valid in MWI as in all other interpretations.* If that were true then the MWI and all other quantum interpretations must be dead wrong because

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

ted at the very largest scale, that of the cosmos. To answer your question the extra matter comes from absolutely nothing and thus its true, Many Worlds violates the law of conservation of mass/energy. But Many Worlds is not unique in that regard; *ALL* modern cosmological theories viol

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

David Wallace (philosopher of physics) here (short interview): https://www.closertotruth.com/interviews/55681 I have pretty much converged on the conclusion that *philosophy of physics* (not physics of course - in its *real* scientific practice) has nothing but confusion to offer, and is

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

ning it in terms of a third observer, Carol, who sits between Alice and Bob, and receives their results along the light cone. Carol receives Alice's results first (she is slightly closer to Alice), and splits in two: 'Carol-who-sees-Alice-up', and 'Carol-who-sees-Alice-down'. Then later, she

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On 10/1/2019 4:55 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 3:12 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 9/30/2019 11:06 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: You say the light carrying the information isn't coherent, but it's

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 3:12 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 9/30/2019 11:06 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > You say the light carrying the >> information isn't coherent, but it's not just the light that carries the >> information; it's

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

Many Worlds is *not* > realistic. And we know for a experimental fact that Bell's inequality is > violated, therefore simple algebra forces us to conclude that at least > one of the following things must be wrong, perhaps all 3: > > 1) Realism > 2) Superdeterminism > 3) Locality > >

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 19:24, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 10:04:22 AM UTC-5, smitra wrote: >> >> So, the best way to interpret the >> multiverse is to simply assume that all possible time snaps of universes >> exist as timele

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On 10/1/2019 4:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 1 Oct 2019, at 07:37, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On 9/30/2019 9:52 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: I haven't read Carroll's book, it isn't released in Australia until November. I would be interested to see if he has a better account

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 10:04:22 AM UTC-5, smitra wrote: > > So, the best way to interpret the > multiverse is to simply assume that all possible time snaps of universes > exist as timeless entities. In classical physics, there is a one > parameter family of

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On 9/30/2019 11:06 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: You say the light carrying the information isn't coherent, but it's not just the light that carries the information; it's information encoded in the wave function of the environment. That information encoded in the wave

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

is NOT realistic. And we know for a experimental fact that Bell's inequality is violated, therefore simple algebra forces us to conclude that at least one of the following things must be wrong, perhaps all 3: 1) Realism 2) Superdeterminism 3) Locality Although I can't prove it's wrong I find it almost

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

else it may be Many Worlds is *not* > realistic. And we know for a experimental fact that Bell's inequality is > violated, therefore simple algebra forces us to conclude that at least > one of the following things must be wrong, perhaps all 3: > > 1) Realism > 2) Superdeter

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

efore simple algebra forces us to conclude that at least one of the following things must be wrong, perhaps all 3: 1) Realism 2) Superdeterminism 3) Locality Although I can't prove it's wrong I find it almost impossible to believe Superdeterminism is true, but Locality might be. John K Clark --

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

. That is why the violation of Bell’s inequality is a quasi-confimartion of > the “other histories” being as real as our’s. > As I said, the thought that Bell might be local in many worlds was really the last hope for MWI being of any use. But all attempts to demonstrate this have fail

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

> On 1 Oct 2019, at 07:37, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 9/30/2019 9:52 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> I haven't read Carroll's book, it isn't released in Australia until >> November. I would be interested to see if he has a better account of Bell >> non-locality

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 9:53:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > In the case of *Everett'*s relative state, it suggested decoherence and > *quantum > Darwinism *which I think have gone a long way to answering the questions > of preferred pointer states and the Heisenberg cut. > >

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

interaction that writes the information into > the environment. So that we can imagine that both UP and DOWN > information spreads from Alice and also separately from Bob. Where they > overlap in the future they must correlate per QM. Why can't we suppose > that the inconsistent worlds ca

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On 9/30/2019 9:52 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: I haven't read Carroll's book, it isn't released in Australia until November. I would be interested to see if he has a better account of Bell non-locality than Wallace. About the spread of "splitting": decoherence is a local physical interaction

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

;> decoherence plus einselection will make the reduced density matrix strictly >>> diagonal, i.e. he solves the preferred basis and derivation of the Born >>> rule. Then he suggests, but doesn't really argue, that the universe cannot >>> have enough information to reali

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

f the Born rule.  Then he suggests, but doesn't really argue, that the universe cannot have enough information to realize all the non-zero states on the diagonal and so only a few can be realized and that realization is per the Born rule.  This is what Carroll would

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

ally argue, that the universe cannot >> have enough information to realize all the non-zero states on the diagonal >> and so only a few can be realized and that realization is per the Born >> rule. This is what Carroll would dismiss as a "disappearing world >> interpretat

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

e reduced density matrix strictly diagonal, i.e. he solves the preferred basis and derivation of the Born rule.  Then he suggests, but doesn't really argue, that the universe cannot have enough information to realize all the non-zero states on the diagonal and so only a few can be

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

> On 30 Sep 2019, at 00:15, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 06:27:16PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: >> >> When I wrote "lowest" I was assuming the context of MWI...not a single >> universe. The Bekenstein bound implies that the Hubble volume has an

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 8:22:32 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > > Wouldn't it also depend on when you are observing the universe? > - > > > > Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On 9/29/2019 6:13 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 03:27:51PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On 9/29/2019 3:15 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 06:27:16PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: When I wrote

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

i.e. he solves the preferred basis and derivation of the Born > rule. Then he suggests, but doesn't really argue, that the universe cannot > have enough information to realize all the non-zero states on the diagonal > and so only a few can be realized and that realization is per the Born >

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 03:27:51PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: > > > On 9/29/2019 3:15 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 06:27:16PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything > List wrote: > > When I wrote "lowest" I was assuming the context

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On 9/29/2019 3:15 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 06:27:16PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: When I wrote "lowest" I was assuming the context of MWI...not a single universe.  The Bekenstein bound implies that the Hubble volume has an upper bound for

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 06:27:16PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: > > When I wrote "lowest" I was assuming the context of MWI...not a single > universe.  The Bekenstein bound implies that the Hubble volume has an upper > bound for information capacity of it's surface area in

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

; That is a very interesting paper. > > > > But I don't see where Many Worlds as Carroll presents them are necessarily > implied by these axioms. > > > They are implied by the SWE, or Dirac. May be the best argument is that > the founder have invented the notion of colla

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

ally argue, that the universe cannot have enough information to realize all the non-zero states on the diagonal and so only a few can be realized and that realization is per the Born rule.  This is what Carroll would dismiss as a "disappearing world interpretation”; Me too. but it

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 1:42:00 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > it [?] associates the qualia, not to the computational state realised by > the amoebas work, but to the infinitely many equivalent state realised in > arithmetic. A priori there are far too much, but the math shows

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

gt;> That is a very interesting paper. >> >> >>> >>> But I don't see where Many Worlds as Carroll presents them are necessarily >>> implied by these axioms. >> >> They are implied by the SWE, or Dirac. May be the best argument is that the >> f

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >