Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

ds". John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> pga > On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 at 00:58, John Clark wrote: > > > > I read an article called The multiverse is unscientific nonsense by > Jacob Barandes, a lecturer

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

id but didn't have time to > comment further. This is the letter I sent: > === > > Hello Professor Barandes > > I read your article The multiverse is unscientific nonsense with interest and > I have a few comments: > > Nobody is claiming that the existence of the multiverse is a

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:42 AM John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 5:24 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > *> that fact is not central, despite the ramblings on Wikipedia.* >> > > It is my experience that when a debate opponent resorts to disparageing > the accuracy of Wikipedia I know that

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 5:24 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: *> that fact is not central, despite the ramblings on Wikipedia.* > It is my experience that when a debate opponent resorts to disparageing the accuracy of Wikipedia I know that I've backed him into a corner and he's desperate. Would it

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:11 AM John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 4:29 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > *>>> You don't have to be a mathematical realist to believe that adding one apple to another apple in the bowl gives you two apples.* >>> >>> >> But what about an orange? If

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 4:29 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: *>>> You don't have to be a mathematical realist to believe that adding one >>> apple to another apple in the bowl gives you two apples.* >>> >> >> >> But what about an orange? If you're not a realist and so don't even >> know if "orange" is a

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 11:27 PM John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Dec 3, 2023 at 5:11 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > *> You don't have to be a mathematical realist to believe that adding one >> apple to another apple in the bowl gives you two apples.* >> > > But what about an orange? If you're not a

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Sun, Dec 3, 2023 at 5:11 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: *> You don't have to be a mathematical realist to believe that adding one > apple to another apple in the bowl gives you two apples.* > But what about an orange? If you're not a realist and so don't even know if "orange" is a noun or an

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 11:18 AM smitra wrote: > On 24-11-2023 10:49, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > That doesn't seem to get rid of probability. How will you empirically > > confirm that you need less information to specify X than Y. You will > > still need frequentist statistics. > > That's true

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On 24-11-2023 10:49, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/23/2023 10:38 PM, smitra wrote: On 23-11-2023 22:12, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/23/2023 2:26 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 5:55 PM Brent Meeker wrote: Bohr insisted that we treat electrons as quantum objects but our measuring

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 8:56 AM Jason Resch wrote: > On Sun, Dec 3, 2023, 4:40 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > >> I don't think the Born rule is implied by MWI; but it's already known to >> be the only rational way to define a probability measure on a Hilbert space >> (Gleason's theorem). So in a

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Sun, Dec 3, 2023, 4:40 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > I don't think the Born rule is implied by MWI; but it's already known to > be the only rational way to define a probability measure on a Hilbert space > (Gleason's theorem). So in a sense it's implicit in QM regardless of > interpretation. > >

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

I don't think the Born rule is implied by MWI; but it's already known to be the only rational way to define a probability measure on a Hilbert space (Gleason's theorem).  So in a sense it's implicit in QM regardless of interpretation. QBism, which is a version of CI+decoherence is at least as

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

Mermin and Hartle wrote about "Now" https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/67/3/8/1017354/Commentary-What-I-think-about-Now? https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/67/9/8/414845/Classical-and-quantum-framing-of-the-Now? https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0403001 -- You received this

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 4:16 PM Brent Meeker wrote: >> If somebody proposes a theory that would have profound physical and >> philosophical implications and a key ingredient of that theory is something >> called "measurement " that seems to have magical abilities and nobody can >> even

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On 11/30/2023 4:33 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 4:39 PM Brent Meeker wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 7:43 PM Brent Meeker wrote: />>> For comparison you could posit a theory, MWI*, which is MWI plus the provision that only one exists with

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 4:02 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 11/29/2023 11:23 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 12:19 AM Brent Meeker wrote: > >> >> >> On 11/29/2023 8:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 9:57 PM Brent Meeker wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On 11/29/2023 11:23 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 12:19 AM Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/29/2023 8:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 9:57 PM Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/29/2023 4:58 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Nov 29, 2023,

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 9:13 AM 'scerir' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > *> On playing gods: The fallacy of the many-worlds > interpretationhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2311.03467 > * > According to the abstract, the main problem with

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

Just two links Tel-Aviv conference on MWI (2022), many videos https://www.mwi2022tau.com/ https://www.mwi2022tau.com/ On playing gods: The fallacy of the many-worlds interpretation https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.03467 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 7:33 AM John Clark wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 4:39 PM Brent Meeker > wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 7:43 PM Brent Meeker >> wrote: >> >> *>>> For comparison you could posit a theory, MWI*, which is MWI plus the >>> provision that only one exists with

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 4:39 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 7:43 PM Brent Meeker > wrote: > > *>>> For comparison you could posit a theory, MWI*, which is MWI plus the >> provision that only one exists with probability as defined by the Born >> rule. Would MWI* be a different

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 2:59 PM Brent Meeker wrote: *> **Reading the Carroll/Sebens paper is suggestive, but it depends on > transforming to a basis that makes the number of components match the Born > rule. But it seems to me that one could transform to basis where the > number of components

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 12:19 AM Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 11/29/2023 8:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 9:57 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > >> >> >> On 11/29/2023 4:58 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 7:17 PM Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Nov

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On 11/29/2023 8:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 9:57 PM Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/29/2023 4:58 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 7:17 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 10:45 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 12:46 PM Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 8:39 PM Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 11:59 AM Jason Resch >>> wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 7:17 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 9:57 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 11/29/2023 4:58 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 7:17 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett >>> wrote: >>>

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 12:46 PM Jason Resch wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 8:39 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 11:59 AM Jason Resch >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 7:17 PM Bruce Kellett >>> wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou <

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On 11/29/2023 5:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 8:39 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 11:59 AM Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 7:17 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On 11/29/2023 4:58 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 7:17 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM Stathis

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 8:39 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 11:59 AM Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 7:17 PM Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote: >>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 12:34 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > On 11/29/2023 4:17 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou >>>

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 8:34 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 11/29/2023 4:17 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou >>>

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 11:59 AM Jason Resch wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 7:17 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett >>> wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM Stathis

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On 11/29/2023 4:17 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: The Born rule allows you to

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 7:17 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote: >>> >> The Born rule allows you to

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >> >>> > The Born rule allows you to calculate the probability of what outcome >>> you will see in a Universe

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On 11/29/2023 10:01 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 7:43 PM Brent Meeker wrote: /> For comparison you could posit a theory, MWI*, which is MWI plus the provision that only one exists with probability as defined by the Born rule.  Would MWI* be a different

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On 11/29/2023 6:27 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: [Bruce] Not really comparable. The probability of what ball you get is distinct from the fact that the ball exists. MWI is not a theory about what you will see. Any theory about that is necessarily a single world theory since you

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 2:59 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 11/29/2023 4:00 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 7:30 PM Brent Meeker > wrote: > > *> MWI fans assert that it is superior because it doesn't assume the Born >> rule, only the Schroedinger equation. I wouldn't claim

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On 11/29/2023 4:00 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 7:30 PM Brent Meeker wrote: /> MWI fans assert that it is superior because it doesn't assume the Born rule, only the Schroedinger equation.  I wouldn't claim that the (modern) version of Copenhagen is superior to

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 7:43 PM Brent Meeker wrote: *> For comparison you could posit a theory, MWI*, which is MWI plus the > provision that only one exists with probability as defined by the Born > rule. Would MWI* be a different interpretation than modern-CI? * In that case MWI* would be

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Bruce] Not really comparable. The probability of what ball you get is distinct from the fact that the ball exists. MWI is not a theory about what you will see. Any theory about that is necessarily a single world theory since you only see one ball. MWI is a theory about what exists, and its

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 7:30 PM Brent Meeker wrote: *> MWI fans assert that it is superior because it doesn't assume the Born > rule, only the Schroedinger equation. I wouldn't claim that the (modern) > version of Copenhagen is superior to MWI, I'm just unconvinced of the > converse.* A

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 11:32, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:25 AM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote: >>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 11:17, Bruce

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 6:49 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: *> the Born rule is incompatible with MWI. It is not incompatible with the > CI.* Nothing is incompatible with CI and nothing is compatible with it either because nobody knows what the hell CI is saying, and that includes Niels Bohr. John

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 11:32, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:25 AM Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 11:17, Bruce Kellett >>> wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:13 AM Stathis

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 11:32, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:25 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 11:17, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:13 AM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote: >>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 10:53, Bruce

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On 11/28/2023 4:32 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:25 AM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 11:17, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:13 AM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 10:53, Bruce

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:25 AM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 11:17, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:13 AM Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 10:53, Bruce Kellett >>> wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:40 AM Stathis

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On 11/28/2023 3:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 5:12 PM Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2023 1:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 4:55 PM Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2023 1:33 PM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 11:17, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:13 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 10:53, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:40 AM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote: >>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 09:34, Bruce

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:13 AM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 10:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:40 AM Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 09:34, Bruce Kellett >>> wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:29 AM John

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 10:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:40 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 09:34, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:29 AM John Clark wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:14 PM Bruce Kellett

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:40 AM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 09:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:29 AM John Clark wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:14 PM Bruce Kellett >>> wrote: >>> >>> *> Given a long series of N spin measurements, MWI

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:25 AM Jason Resch wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 5:12 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > >> On 11/28/2023 1:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 4:55 PM Brent Meeker >> wrote: >> >>> On 11/28/2023 1:33 PM, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:22 

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 09:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:29 AM John Clark wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:14 PM Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >> *> Given a long series of N spin measurements, MWI says that there is >>> always one person who sees N spin-ups. Since this

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 5:12 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 11/28/2023 1:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 4:55 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > >> >> >> On 11/28/2023 1:33 PM, John Clark wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:22 PM Brent Meeker >> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >>

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:41 AM John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:34 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > >> The probability that Bruce Kellett will see N spin-ups is indeed one. >>> However the probability that you will see N spin-ups is not. As I >>> mentioned before, for this sort of

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:34 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: >> The probability that Bruce Kellett will see N spin-ups is indeed one. >> However the probability that you will see N spin-ups is not. As I >> mentioned before, for this sort of discussion the way the English language >> handles personal

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:35 AM John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:28 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > *> Everettians have to derive the Born rule * > > > Nobody needs to derive the Born rule because we know from experiment that > it's true, a quantum interpretation just needs to be

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:28 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: *> Everettians have to derive the Born rule * Nobody needs to derive the Born rule because we know from experiment that it's true, a quantum interpretation just needs to be compatible with it, and MWI certainly is. John K ClarkSee

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:29 AM John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:14 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > *> Given a long series of N spin measurements, MWI says that there is >> always one person who sees N spin-ups. Since this observation is certain, >> it has probability one. Whereas

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:14 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: *> Given a long series of N spin measurements, MWI says that there is > always one person who sees N spin-ups. Since this observation is certain, > it has probability one. Whereas the Born probability of seeing N ups is > 1/2^N. A clear

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:21 AM John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:08 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > *> the Born Rule is a necessary additional hypothesis in order to connect >> the theory with experiment.* >> > > True, and for that reason theory does not have to derive the Born

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:08 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: *> the Born Rule is a necessary additional hypothesis in order to connect > the theory with experiment.* > True, and for that reason theory does not have to derive the Born Rule, but theory does have to be compatible with it. > > You have

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:10 AM John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:00 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > *> John is doing a lot of flailing around in an attempt to avoid the >> question of where the Born Rule comes from, and the fact that it is >> actually incompatible with the many

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On 11/28/2023 1:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 4:55 PM Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/28/2023 1:33 PM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:22 PM Brent Meeker wrote: That is incorrect. Schrodinger'sequation, the thing that

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:07 AM John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:55 PM Brent Meeker > wrote: > > >> If you're an engineer and are only interested in finding the correct >>> answer to a given problem then Shut Up And Calculate works just fine. >>> MWI is only needed if you're

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:00 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: *> John is doing a lot of flailing around in an attempt to avoid the > question of where the Born Rule comes from, and the fact that it is > actually incompatible with the many worlds approach.* > How so? John K ClarkSee what's on my

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:58 AM Jason Resch wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 4:55 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > >> On 11/28/2023 1:33 PM, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:22 PM Brent Meeker >> wrote: >> >>> That is incorrect. Schrodinger's equation, the thing that generates the

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:55 PM Brent Meeker wrote: >> If you're an engineer and are only interested in finding the correct >> answer to a given problem then Shut Up And Calculate works just fine. >> MWI is only needed if you're curious and want to look under the hood to >> figure out what

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:55 AM Brent Meeker wrote: > On 11/28/2023 1:33 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:22 PM Brent Meeker > wrote: > >> That is incorrect. Schrodinger's equation, the thing that generates the >>> complex wave function, says nothing, absolutely nothing,

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 4:55 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 11/28/2023 1:33 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:22 PM Brent Meeker > wrote: > > >> > > That is incorrect. Schrodinger's equation, the thing that generates the >>> complex wave function, says nothing, absolutely

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On 11/28/2023 1:33 PM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:22 PM Brent Meeker wrote: That is incorrect. Schrodinger'sequation, the thing that generates the complex wave function, says nothing, absolutely nothing, about that wave function collapsing, So

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:22 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > That is incorrect. Schrodinger's equation, the thing that generates the >> complex wave function, says nothing, absolutely nothing, about that wave >> function collapsing, So if you don't like philosophical paradoxes but still >> want to

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On 11/28/2023 4:28 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 5:00 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: />>> I can arrange for any probability between zero and one of seeing a live cat. Whereas, if there is always a live cat branch and a dead cat branch, my

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 5:00 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: * >>> I can arrange for any probability between zero and one of seeing a >>> live cat. Whereas, if there is always a live cat branch and a dead cat >>> branch, my probability of seeing a live cat is always 50%, contrary to the >>> laws of

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 12:05 AM John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 8:07 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > >> There are a googolplex number of Bruce Kelletts, all of which are in >>> very slightly different quantum states but they all observe that, although >>> Schrodinger's cat is in

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 12:51 AM Brent Meeker wrote: > *> That seems to entail other problems. 1/3 of infinity is the same size > as infinity.* > That's one reason I suspect that space-time is discrete, not continuous. But even if it's not all hope may not be lost, after all in quantum

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 8:07 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: >> There are a googolplex number of Bruce Kelletts, all of which are in >> very slightly different quantum states but they all observe that, although >> Schrodinger's cat is in slightly different quantum states, the cat is alive >> in all of

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On 11/26/2023 6:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 8:07 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 9:55 AM John Clark wrote: On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 5:35 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> /and how do they instantiate the

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 8:07 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 9:55 AM John Clark wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 5:35 PM Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >> >>> > *and how do they instantiate the probabilities that we measure.* > >> There is one observer for

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 9:55 AM John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 5:35 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > >>> *and how do they instantiate the probabilities that we measure.* >>> >>> >> There is one observer for every quantum state Schrodinger's cat is >>> in. >>> >> >> *>That is

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 5:35 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> >>> *and how do they instantiate the probabilities that we measure.* >>> >> >> >> There is one observer for every quantum state Schrodinger's cat is in. >> > > *>That is exactly the problem. That would suggest that the two outcomes > (dead

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 7:19 AM John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 2:52 PM Brent Meeker > wrote: > > >> Copenhagen does not explain why some are more real than others, Many >>> Worlds says the obvious answer to this dilemma is that they are all equally >>> real, so there is nothing

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 2:52 PM Brent Meeker wrote: >> Copenhagen does not explain why some are more real than others, Many >> Worlds says the obvious answer to this dilemma is that they are all equally >> real, so there is nothing that needs explaining. > > > * >Except how many of them are

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On 11/26/2023 5:08 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 5:14 PM Brent Meeker wrote: /> Everything we know about QM comes from observations, each of which is seeing a result, not a superposition of results. / But nothing we observe in the quantum realmcan be predicted or

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

It seems that, on page 270 of this paper, Feynman said something about Everett and his "universal wave-function" https://edition-open-sources.org/media/sources/5/Sources5.pdf s. __ See also Zeh here https://arxiv.org/abs/0804.3348 s. i -- You received this

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

This started with my point that we test, observer, infer, write papers, attend conferences, discuss and write down theories, all in a classical world. Everything we know about QM comes from observations, each of which is seeing a result, not a superposition of results. This is the basis of

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 5:14 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > * > Everything we know about QM comes from observations, each of which > is seeing a result, not a superposition of results. * > But nothing we observe in the quantum realm can be predicted or explained unless we use theories that

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On 11/25/2023 12:12 PM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 5:51 PM Brent Meeker wrote: >> And the best response to my challenge that you could come up with was: "/The explanation is in print which is classica/l" /> Can you tell the difference

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 5:51 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > > >> And the best response to my challenge that you could come up with was: >> "*The explanation is in print which is classica*l" >> > > * > Can you tell the difference between the above and "The explanation is > classical and is in print." *

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:23:48 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 7:45 PM Brent Meeker wrote: >> There is plenty of direct evidence that quantum weirdness exists, even the father of the Copenhagen Interpretation Niels Bohr admitted that "*Anyone who is not shocked

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

: *I read an article called The multiverse is unscientific nonsense <https://iai.tv/articles/the-multiverse-is-unscientific-nonsense-auid-2668> by Jacob Barandes, a lecturer in physics at Harvard University, and I wrote a letter to professor **Barandes commenting on it. He responded with

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On 11/24/2023 2:35 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 1:48 AM John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 5:36 AM Brent Meeker wrote: // /> Let's review the bidding John.  I said the classical world was necessary to science/ And if that's

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 1:48 AM John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 5:36 AM Brent Meeker > wrote: > > * > Let's review the bidding John. I said the classical world was >> necessary to science* >> > > And if that's all you had said we wouldn't be having an argument, but you > insisted

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 5:36 AM Brent Meeker wrote: * > Let's review the bidding John. I said the classical world was > necessary to science* > And if that's all you had said we wouldn't be having an argument, but you insisted that classical concepts were also sufficient to do science. You

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

On 11/24/2023 2:26 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: [John] Using only classical concepts explain to me how and why the Quantum Eraser Experiment works. [Brent] The explanation is in print which is classical. [John] If you're right and an explanation of how and why the Quantum

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John] Using only classical concepts explain to me how and why the Quantum Eraser Experiment works. [Brent] The explanation is in print which is classical. [John] If you're right and an explanation of how and why the Quantum Eraser Experiment works that only uses classical concepts is in

  1   2   >