date:20220513

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

2022-05-13 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 12:06 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 9:46 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
> *>>> Explaining the values of the probabilities isn't the problem with
 MWI,  it's explaining that there are probabilities*
>>>
>>>
>>> >> That's easy in MWI. Probabilities exist because until you actually
>>> look at it there is no way to know if you are the Brent Meeker who lives in
>>> a universe where the electron went left or you are the Brent Meeker who
>>> lives in a universe where the electron went right, due to the fact that the
>>> only difference between the two Brent Meekers is what the electron does.
>>>
>>
>> > But you don’t think this applies with non MWI duplication.
>>
>
> That is simply NOT true! After my body has been duplicated but before I
> have open the door of the duplicating chamber to see where I was I won't
> know if I will be the John Clark who has seen Moscow or the John Clark
> who has seen Helsinki, and indeed the distinction between the two would be
> meaningless because the two would be identical until the door is opened and
> they differentiate because then one has the memory of seeing Moscow but
> the other has the memory of seeing Helsinki.  So if both decided to place a
> bet on what they would see after the door was opened (and if one decided to
> place a bet then the other certainly would too because they're identical)
> then, provided they were logical,and I think I am at least most of the
> time, they would both put the odds at 50-50.
>

So how do you accommodate a situation in which there is a 90% chance of
seeing Moscow and a 10% chance of seeing Helsinki?

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQ%2Bv%2Bte0fJ%3Dd9hmvqewjQ3vkwaRzf4kM8sWsg%2B%2Bg8%3DdFQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

2022-05-13 Thread John Clark

On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 9:46 PM Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

*>>> Explaining the values of the probabilities isn't the problem with
>>> MWI,  it's explaining that there are probabilities*
>>
>>
>> >> That's easy in MWI. Probabilities exist because until you actually
>> look at it there is no way to know if you are the Brent Meeker who lives in
>> a universe where the electron went left or you are the Brent Meeker who
>> lives in a universe where the electron went right, due to the fact that the
>> only difference between the two Brent Meekers is what the electron does.
>>
>
> > But you don’t think this applies with non MWI duplication.
>

That is simply NOT true! After my body has been duplicated but before I
have open the door of the duplicating chamber to see where I was I won't
know if I will be the John Clark who has seen Moscow or the John Clark who
has seen Helsinki, and indeed the distinction between the two would be
meaningless because the two would be identical until the door is opened and
they differentiate because then one has the memory of seeing Moscow but the
other has the memory of seeing Helsinki.  So if both decided to place a bet
on what they would see after the door was opened (and if one decided to
place a bet then the other certainly would too because they're identical)
then, provided they were logical,and I think I am at least most of the
time, they would both put the odds at 50-50.

  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

lmt

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3PBSBOnJmrrY0-4uZKwU58-tWd%3DW3LqZGOwzPxibDqXg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

2022-05-13 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On Fri, 13 May 2022 at 22:09, John Clark  wrote:

>
> On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 4:27 PM Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
> *> Explaining the values of the probabilities isn't the problem with MWI,
>> it's explaining that there are probabilities*
>
>
> That's easy in MWI. Probabilities exist because until you actually look at
> it there is no way to know if you are the Brent Meeker who lives in a
> universe where the electron went left or you are the Brent Meeker who lives
> in a universe where the electron went right, due to the fact that the only
> difference between the two Brent Meekers is what the electron does.
>

But you don’t think this applies with non MWI duplication.

  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
> 
> mbe
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3Dn8ghJUMTt%3DU0L48ROnNYOpweXCa1sB0os140U8FNyA%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>
-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypX%2BNEkuGA%3DC94LvWPC-1wgjJEd8QVo7X5WD%3DwWgcbCHEg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

2022-05-13 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 5:51 AM smitra  wrote:

> On 12-05-2022 22:18, Brent Meeker wrote:
> >
> > I agree.  And in fact SE fails all the time.  It fails to predict a
> > definite outcome...which is OK if you accept probabilistic theories.
>
> Physics doesn't work in this way. You always need to define a well
> defined hypothesis first in order to interpret experimental results and
> be able to test various alternative hypotheses/theories. If you don't do
> this, you are not doing physics.
>

Tell that to the army of people who pounce on every anomaly that appears in
analyses of partial data from the LHC or Tevatron. Every anomaly produces a
slew of papers, all proposing "explanations" of the anomaly. This is an
industry, it is not physics. Generally the anomalies go away with time and
further data -- there are no "well defined hypotheses" at work here.

> But then its real failure is that it doesn't tell you exactly when and
> > where and why it stops unitary evolution and produces a result.
>
> That's a failure of particular interpretations of QM, e.g. the CI that
> postulate collapse.
>
> > The Born rule tells us the probability of a result...IF there is one.
> > Decoherence tells there's an asymptotic approach to a result and
> > why...but not when and where it arrives.
>
> Decoherence does does tell you how the different sectors split over
> time.
>

Not if unitary evolution is exact and always. You have often argued that
the original superposition never really goes away. Strictly, that means
that the initial state is still intact, and nothing has in fact happened.
Decoherence has to work through to a conclusion if the sectors are to split
and a definite result is to emerge. This is where unitary evolution breaks
down. Taken literally it never leads to a result. Just as in a quantum
computer -- the internal unitary evolution has to invoke decoherence and
collapse in order for a result to emerge.

You need some marker of the point at which the different sectors finally
differentiate. The SE itself is clearly not the whole story...you need
something like a minimum non-zero probability! Or an acceptance that FAPP
is good enough, along with an understanding of when FAPP is good enough.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQuT%3DzffD-fgKTvd6kJk7Pg5NxfXz_LE6BLqJ-Qd8_JzQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

2022-05-13 Thread Brent Meeker

On 5/13/2022 11:47 AM, smitra wrote:

On 12-05-2022 22:18, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 5/12/2022 11:17 AM, smitra wrote:

On 11-05-2022 23:02, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 5/11/2022 11:51 AM, smitra wrote:

On 11-05-2022 07:25, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 3:11 PM smitra wrote:

On 11-05-2022 06:06, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 1:56 PM smitra wrote:

On 09-05-2022 00:34, Bruce Kellett wrote:

That still treats the SE as indubitally true. No theory in

physics is

'indubitably true'.

The Everett program is to say that the SE is all that there is

-- it

explains everything. That is clearly false (no Born rule in the

SE),

so it might be wise to doubt the universal application of the

SE.

There is no good reason to doubt the SE without any experimental

hints

that it breaks down, or any good theoretical reasons why it is
likely to break down in some regime.

Such faith would be touching if it weren't so naive. There are

good

theoretical and experimental reasons to believe that it cannot be

the

whole story.

As John Clark has also mentioned, the opposite is true. There
are no

good arguments for collapse theories. There are no experimental
hints
for real collapse

That depends on how you read the data. We only see one outcome for
each experiment, after all!

And the results of those experiments lead to a theory where time
evolution is given by a unitary transform. It's as John Clark also
mentioned in one of his replies, analogous to how time reversal
symmetry is not apparent in the macroscopic world. But we know
that the fundamental laws are time reversible. This apparent
discrepancy can be explained, it's not evidence for time
reversibility being violated in nature.

and if we argue based on theory, then we see that it
leads to many problems.

The SE also has many problems., as I have taken pains to point out.

There are no problems with the SE. It's not inconsistent with the
Born rule. The only issue is that it looks a bit unnatural for a
fundamental law of physics to require both a dynamical ruke and
the Born rule. But a real collapse is inconsistent with the SE.

Not in QBism. It's just updating your prior. Seems a perfect fit for
someone who wants to take an information theoretic approach and model
consciousness as an algorithm.

A real collapse is nevertheless inconsistent with the SE, there
would exist physical processes where the SE would fail. If real
collapse is supposed to happen in experiments, then because
experiments are ultimately just many particle interactions then that
means that, in general, the SE cannot be exactly valid. We may then
try to observe small violations of the SE in the lab.

I agree. And in fact SE fails all the time. It fails to predict a
definite outcome...which is OK if you accept probabilistic theories.

Physics doesn't work in this way. You always need to define a well
defined hypothesis first in order to interpret experimental results
and be able to test various alternative hypotheses/theories. If you
don't do this, you are not doing physics.

Which is why assuming the SE is the whole truth even though it predicts
that everything possible happens, isn't doing physics.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d8a038fa-9a5b-601e-4eb3-c637f46d6184%40gmail.com.

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

2022-05-13 Thread Brent Meeker

On 5/13/2022 12:32 PM, smitra wrote:

On 12-05-2022 22:27, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 5/12/2022 11:42 AM, smitra wrote:

All that the experiments demonstrate is that the wave function
evolves
unitarily between state preparation and measurement. This is most
easily accounted for by assuming that the wave function is a
purely
epistemic vehicle for the time evolution of probabilities. Since
it is
purely epistemic, collapse is not a problem since it is not a
physical
event. One does not have to go the whole way to QBism -- the wave
function can still be objective (inter-subjectively agreed).

That's possible but that means that QM is not a complete fundamental
theory of reality. Anything that explains these probabilities is
then possible, including the existence of a multiverse.

Which is about as explanatory as "God did it." Explaining the values
of the probabilities isn't the problem with MWI, it's explaining that
there ARE probabilities even though nothing happens, and when and
where the probabilities arise.

I agree with what John Clark said in his reply.

Right CI doesn't explain the collapse and MWI doesn't explain the
collapse either but assumes it can be explained without new physics. I
hypothesize (not assume) that CI+ can
explain the collapse. I don't see any big advantage for MWI here. My
attitude toward interpretations is that they are unimportant in
themselves, but they are useful in pointing to new, more comprehensive
and accurate theories. That's one reason I'm not impressed by MWI since
it seems to ex hypothesi put any emprical testing out of reach.

Brent

Those explanations may not be satisfactory as of yet, but that's
typical for most of science. There are phenomena that as of yet are
not well explained, but that does not (necessarily) lead us to
postulate new physics all the time. Doing so would make us like
creationists who tend to invoke a "God of the gaps".

Saibal

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/03b48558-b7a4-a48a-ee68-58e5e07931a4%40gmail.com

[1].

Links:
--
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/03b48558-b7a4-a48a-ee68-58e5e07931a4%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

2022-05-13 Thread smitra

On 12-05-2022 22:18, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 5/12/2022 11:17 AM, smitra wrote:

On 11-05-2022 23:02, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 5/11/2022 11:51 AM, smitra wrote:

On 11-05-2022 07:25, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 3:11 PM smitra wrote:

On 11-05-2022 06:06, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 1:56 PM smitra wrote:

On 09-05-2022 00:34, Bruce Kellett wrote:

That still treats the SE as indubitally true. No theory in

physics is

'indubitably true'.

The Everett program is to say that the SE is all that there is

-- it

explains everything. That is clearly false (no Born rule in the

SE),

so it might be wise to doubt the universal application of the

SE.

There is no good reason to doubt the SE without any experimental

hints

that it breaks down, or any good theoretical reasons why it is
likely to break down in some regime.

Such faith would be touching if it weren't so naive. There are

good

theoretical and experimental reasons to believe that it cannot be

the

whole story.

As John Clark has also mentioned, the opposite is true. There are
no

good arguments for collapse theories. There are no experimental
hints
for real collapse

That depends on how you read the data. We only see one outcome for
each experiment, after all!

And the results of those experiments lead to a theory where time
evolution is given by a unitary transform. It's as John Clark also
mentioned in one of his replies, analogous to how time reversal
symmetry is not apparent in the macroscopic world. But we know that
the fundamental laws are time reversible. This apparent discrepancy
can be explained, it's not evidence for time reversibility being
violated in nature.

and if we argue based on theory, then we see that it
leads to many problems.

The SE also has many problems., as I have taken pains to point out.

There are no problems with the SE. It's not inconsistent with the
Born rule. The only issue is that it looks a bit unnatural for a
fundamental law of physics to require both a dynamical ruke and the
Born rule. But a real collapse is inconsistent with the SE.

Not in QBism. It's just updating your prior. Seems a perfect fit
for

someone who wants to take an information theoretic approach and model
consciousness as an algorithm.

A real collapse is nevertheless inconsistent with the SE, there would
exist physical processes where the SE would fail. If real collapse is
supposed to happen in experiments, then because experiments are
ultimately just many particle interactions then that means that, in
general, the SE cannot be exactly valid. We may then try to observe
small violations of the SE in the lab.

I agree. And in fact SE fails all the time. It fails to predict a
definite outcome...which is OK if you accept probabilistic theories.

Physics doesn't work in this way. You always need to define a well
defined hypothesis first in order to interpret experimental results and
be able to test various alternative hypotheses/theories. If you don't do
this, you are not doing physics.

But then its real failure is that it doesn't tell you exactly when and
where and why it stops unitary evolution and produces a result.

That's a failure of particular interpretations of QM, e.g. the CI that
postulate collapse.

The
Born rule tells us the probability of a result...IF there is one.
Decoherence tells there's an asymptotic approach to a result and
why...but not when and where it arrives.

Decoherence does does tell you how the different sectors split over
time.

Saibal

Brent

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

2022-05-13 Thread smitra


On 13-05-2022 14:08, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 4:27 PM Brent Meeker 
wrote:


_> Explaining the values of the probabilities isn't the problem with
MWI,  it's explaining that there ARE probabilities_


That's easy in MWI. Probabilities exist because until you actually
look at it there is no way to know if you are the Brent Meeker who
lives in a universe where the electron went left or you are the Brent
Meeker who lives in a universe where the electron went right, due to
the fact that the only difference between the two Brent Meekers is
what the electron does.



Indeed!

Saibal


  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis [1]

mbe

 --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3Dn8ghJUMTt%3DU0L48ROnNYOpweXCa1sB0os140U8FNyA%40mail.gmail.com
[2].


Links:
--
[1] https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis
[2]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3Dn8ghJUMTt%3DU0L48ROnNYOpweXCa1sB0os140U8FNyA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/daadcbda1aca56f700cdb901d13d64d5%40zonnet.nl.

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

2022-05-13 Thread smitra

On 13-05-2022 02:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 5:22 AM smitra wrote:

On 12-05-2022 00:44, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 5/11/2022 1:06 PM, smitra wrote:

There is effective collapse in experiments we do, but the
experiments nevertheless demonstrate that the fundamental

processes

proceed under unitary time evolution.

Except when you measure them and actually get a result.

No, there exist no experiment results that demonstrate that unitary
time
evolution is not exactly valid. What you are referring to is that in

experiments we do the wavefunction of the measured system
(effectively)
collapses. But, because we also know from all the experimental
results
that the wavefunction evolves in a unitary way, and experiments are
ultimately nothing more that many particle interactions, that either

unitary time evolution cannot be exactly valid or that the collapse
during measurement is an artifact of decoherence where the observer
(and
the local environment) gets into an entangled superposition with the

measured system. The former hypothesis lacks experimental support.

The multiverse hypothesis also lacks experimental support. We observe
collapse every day and in every experiment. We never observe a
multiverse.

Which is consistent with the multiverse hypothesis.

Saibal

Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTFptj7ttYYvfyP6A2Ep%3DMernnzMR4Znmx4Xk6-Nxh4NA%40mail.gmail.com
[1].

Links:
--
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTFptj7ttYYvfyP6A2Ep%3DMernnzMR4Znmx4Xk6-Nxh4NA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

2022-05-13 Thread smitra

On 13-05-2022 02:50, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 5:57 AM smitra wrote:

On 12-05-2022 01:36, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 9:24 AM smitra wrote:

On 11-05-2022 07:30, Bruce Kellett wrote:

Who proved that the universe was finite?

If it's infinite, one can focus on only the visible part of it.

The visible part is only locally defined -- go to the edge and

there

is another, larger, region.

Yes, but in the end this doesn't really matter due to there only
being
local interactions. After a finite time any finite system can only
interact with a finite number of degrees of freedom in its
environment.

But that does not mean that variables are discrete rather than
continuous.

I agree, not by itself.

If there are only a finite number of states the entire universe

can

be in, then that's also true for observers.

That simply begs the question.

Finite or infinite universe, observers are always finite.

The universe itself is not defined by observers.

The state of the observer can then factor out of the branches the
universe is in.

That is just a meaningless contention. The state of the observer, or
what the observer is aware of, or can or cannot factor out, is
irrelevant to the universe. Reality is not defined by observers.

I fully agree. But this is precisely an argument in favor of the
multiverse when applied to the different sectors.

Saibal

Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRSiX0gaOj7mG7U0pObfB99FrrwVLCYWsuCSKmbkpWV4Q%40mail.gmail.com
[1].

Links:
--
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRSiX0gaOj7mG7U0pObfB99FrrwVLCYWsuCSKmbkpWV4Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

2022-05-13 Thread smitra

On 12-05-2022 22:39, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 5/12/2022 12:08 PM, smitra wrote:

On 12-05-2022 01:46, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 9:08 AM smitra wrote:

On 11-05-2022 08:14, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 3:39 PM Brent Meeker

wrote:

On 5/10/2022 9:43 PM, smitra wrote:

If there are only a finite number of states the entire universe

can be

in, then that's also true for observers.

So what does the SE for this discrete universe look like? The

one

every cites assumes a continuum. If the universe is finite then

there's

smallest non-zero probability, which as Bruce says, raises some
problems.

Not the least of these problems is the fact that a smallest

non-zero

probability makes the collapse real; destroys the ongoing
superposition; renders everything absolutely irreversible; and

screws

the hell out of unitary evolution.

Counterexample: The internal state of an ideal quantum computer will

always evolve under unitary time evolution.

If there is a smallest non-zero probability, this may no longer be
the

case.

A quantum computer implements exactly the sort of a discrete system
that is discussed, and yet it works just fine, evolving under the
unitary time evolutions as it should during the time it can be
maintained in a quantum coherent state.

But it doesn't give an answer by evolving unitarily.

True, but as long as we (can) keep it isolated, the evolution is
unitary, and that contradicts the point Brice was making about discrete
systems and unitary time evolution.

Actually, a smallest non-zero probability would certainly
resolve a lot of the problems with many worlds theory. Unitarity
would

no longer work to all levels; pure states would automatically become
mixtures under decoherence; reversibility would vanish; collapse
would

make sense, and the emergence of the classical world from the
underlying quantum substrate would be explained. All this follows if
there are no continuous quantities in physics, and continuous
variables are just approximations to underlying discrete
quantities..

Solves a lot of problems. I can see why Brent is attracted to this
idea.

This does not follow from the non-existence of continuous quantities,
because nothing on the current laws of physics implies that continuous
quantities objectively exist.

All the more reason to suspect that there is a smallest non-zero
probability.

Yes, but the point Brice makes about unitary time evolution is not true,
at least not in the general way he formulated it.

Saibal

Brent

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

2022-05-13 Thread smitra

On 12-05-2022 22:27, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 5/12/2022 11:42 AM, smitra wrote:

That's possible but that means that QM is not a complete fundamental
theory of reality. Anything that explains these probabilities is
then possible, including the existence of a multiverse.

I agree with what John Clark said in his reply.

To add to that, the "God did it" thing applies far more to the CI,
because there one postulates the collapse without explaining the
mechanism for it. In the MWI one assumes that the appearance of collapse
can be explained from the known dynamics. Those explanations may not be
satisfactory as of yet, but that's typical for most of science. There
are phenomena that as of yet are not well explained, but that does not
(necessarily) lead us to postulate new physics all the time. Doing so
would make us like creationists who tend to invoke a "God of the gaps".

Saibal

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/03b48558-b7a4-a48a-ee68-58e5e07931a4%40gmail.com
[1].

Links:
--
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/03b48558-b7a4-a48a-ee68-58e5e07931a4%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

2022-05-13 Thread smitra

On 12-05-2022 22:23, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 5/12/2022 11:27 AM, smitra wrote:

On 12-05-2022 00:44, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 5/11/2022 1:06 PM, smitra wrote:

That's complete and audacious question begging. What you mean by
"real" is "modeled within the SE". There is NOTHING BUT collapse
experimentally; every result recorded in every notebook and every
tape
is evidence of a collapse.

There is effective collapse in experiments we do, but the
experiments nevertheless demonstrate that the fundamental processes
proceed under unitary time evolution.

Except when you measure them and actually get a result.

No, there exist no experiment results that demonstrate that unitary
time evolution is not exactly valid. What you are referring to is that
in experiments we do the wavefunction of the measured system
(effectively) collapses. But, because we also know from all the
experimental results that the wavefunction evolves in a unitary way,
and experiments are ultimately nothing more that many particle
interactions, that either unitary time evolution cannot be exactly
valid or that the collapse during measurement is an artifact of
decoherence where the observer (and the local environment) gets into
an entangled superposition with the measured system. The former
hypothesis lacks experimental support.

"we also know from all the experimental results that the wavefunction
evolves in a unitary way"...until we get a result and then it doesn't.

So does the latter. It's based purely on the absence of a theory of
collapse, beyond, perhaps, decoherence which provides a (sort of)
theory of pointer basis and approach to collapse.

As I wrote in the previous reply, physics does not work in the way you
are arguing here. You always have to formulate a well defined set of
hypotheses first which you can then test with experimental data. There
are plenty of examples where people tried to do test in a supposedly
model independent way and then got results that were not at all model
independent.

In this case, that the wavefunction collapses or at least appears to, is
something that's treated radically different between the CI-like
hypotheses and the MWI-like hypotheses. So, we can consider a class of
MWI-like theories where there is no collapse with CI-like theories where
there is collapse and then consider how they explain all of the
experimental data.

If you do that, then you see that CI-like theories postulate a new
physical mechanism for collapse that's left unspecified that cannot be
explained from the interaction Hamiltonian that one uses. Here I'm
staying within the context of the CI, I'm not introducing any baggage
from the MWI.

In MWI-like theories, there is nothing else than what is described by
the interaction Hamiltonian. The problem here is to get to a better
explanation of ho decoherence leads to the effective classical world.

The former problem is a real physics problem where one depends on a new
phenomena, just like e.g. dark matter in cosmology. It has to exist
according to the theory, but it hasn't yet been discovered yet. But
unlike in case of dark matter where there are multiple independent
observational results that point to its existence, in case of collapse,
you only have the mere fact that in experiments the wavefunction
collapses.

The problems with MWI-like theories is usual business that's seen in
most other theories. Take e.g. superconductivity and we have plenty of
experimental data that's not well explained yet by the theory. But this
does not lead physicists to postulate new physics.

Saibal

Brent

RE: Unspoken Reasons for Russio-Ukraine War: An Unawakened Consciousness Problem

2022-05-13 Thread Philip Benjamin

[Philip Benjamin]
  Samiya Illias may be right, but who cares for the Bible? Islam consider it as 
a lost Book, with the current copies as all fake. See below what modern Judaism 
views about the Torah. Whe America was  founded there were > 98.8% Protestants, 
<1% Roman Catholics and < 0.2% Jews and they all recognized the current copies 
of OT and/or NT as true to the Originals.  {Koran called them as People of the 
Book). The Bible was the only authority for 98.8 % of the population, whether 
they practiced it or not! That is ludicrous and abominable today. The “Two 
Great Awakenings” (1 st led by the prodigious philosopher Jonathan Edwards, the 
founder of Princeton University and the 2 nd led by the President of Yale 
University), were both the outcome in individual life by ‘the Word through the 
operation of the Spirit to the Knowledge of Redemptive History fulfilled in the 
vicarious death, burial and resurrection of the Messiah according to the 
eternal counsel of the Triune Adonai (plural) YHWH (singular) Elohim 
(uni-plural). There is the difference of light and darkness between 
WAMP-the-Ingrate of today and the “Awakened America” for which the 
ex-seminarian turned Marxist pagan Hitler unconsciously coined the term 
“American Exceptionalism”. There are only two ways out of the present doldrums: 
 1. A Third Great Awakening, perhaps led by a President of a university of 
Gomorrah  2. Civil War as desired or wishfully/willfully thought out probably 
by a WAMP product below.
Philip Benjamin
Nonconformist to Marxist-socialist-fascist pagan globalism.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ex-labor-secretary-breaks-down-how-second-american-civil-war-is-already-underway/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/11/second-american-civil-war-robert-reich
 Wed 11 May 2022 05.18 EDT
“Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who served in President Bill Clinton’s 
administration, on Wednesday explained why he believes the second American 
Civil War is already in progress.”
[Philip Benjamin]
   Samiya Illias quote  “The Torah, The Bible, and The Quran warn against 
homosexual relationships,”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2696758/  Y.H Kahn
PMID: 2696758 DOI: 10.1300/J082v18n03_03
Progressive Jews have begun in recent years to question the underlying premises 
of traditional Jewish teaching on sexuality. Employing the categories of 
covenant theology and applying the interpretative methodology of liberal 
Judaism, the author argues for the valuation of the person as homosexual as a 
legitimate expression of human and Jewish covenantal obligation.
https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-homosexuality-part-of-jewish-tradition-1.5383449?
 fri Ilany Aug. 5, 2015 Updated: Apr. 24, 2018   Homosexuality Is Part of 
Jewish Tradition

https://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/jta/israel-s-health-minister-overturning-roe-v-wade-would-be-a-fatal-blow-to-human/
 Israel’s health minister: Overturning Roe v. Wade would be ‘a fatal blow to 
human rights’ Philissa Cramer Posted May 4, 2022
https://www.businessinsider.com/abortion-bans-may-violate-jewish-womens-first-amendment-rights-2022-5?
  Jewish organizations say restricting abortion access would violate their 
religious freedoms…..  Jewish communities react to the possible overturning of 
Roe v. Wade, which could violate their First Amendment rights Katie Balevic and 
Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Samiya Illias
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 5:02 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Cc: general_the...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Unspoken Reasons for Russio-Ukraine War: An Unawakened 
Consciousness Problem

As in the Days of Lot
https://expeditionthink.blogspot.com/2022/04/as-in-days-of-lot.html?m=1



On 19-Apr-2022, at 1:32 AM, Philip Benjamin 
mailto:medinucl...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
[Philip Benjamin]   References given at the bottom.
  NYTimes.com: "Don't Just Freeze Russia's Money. Seize It. " The WAMP defined 
below knows that the unspoken reason for the Russo-Ukraine war is moral not 
political- an unenergized bio dark-matter twin body problem.
" Western nations commit genocide upon other countries that refuse to hold gay 
pride parades." Says the Orthodox Patriarch of Russia. "Ukraine's LGBTQ is 
forced to confront this as a threat to its own community" reports NY Times. 
Russia was frightened by the decrepit Western cultural onslaught on their 
traditional institutions especially the school systems. So they amend their 
Constitution to ban LGBTQ agenda. "Super Power" America & the West has long

Re: Is Artificial Life Conscious?

2022-05-13 Thread John Clark

On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 7:54 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 9:38:52 PM UTC-5 Jason wrote:
>

*>If simple creatures like worms or insects are conscious, (because they
>> have brains, and evolved), then wouldn't these artificial life forms be
>> conscious for the same reasons?*
>>
>
> > Since consciousness is a subjective experience, how can one know for
> sure?

You can't know for sure just as you can't know for sure that solipsism is
untrue, but you know that consciousness by itself produces no evolutionary
advantage only behavior does, and you know you are conscious, so if you
believe in Darwin's theory you'd know that evolution managed to produce at
least one conscious thing and conclude that things that behave
intelligently are conscious. So to the extent that worms and artificial
life behave intelligently they are also conscious. Probably.

 John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

pne

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0_oSeNXUDz-S3mEeHCPMXk3OCDvwWA%2B8eTVVPN6mBcqQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

2022-05-13 Thread John Clark

On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 4:27 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

*> Explaining the values of the probabilities isn't the problem with MWI,
> it's explaining that there are probabilities*


That's easy in MWI. Probabilities exist because until you actually look at
it there is no way to know if you are the Brent Meeker who lives in a
universe where the electron went left or you are the Brent Meeker who lives
in a universe where the electron went right, due to the fact that the only
difference between the two Brent Meekers is what the electron does.

  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

mbe

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3Dn8ghJUMTt%3DU0L48ROnNYOpweXCa1sB0os140U8FNyA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

RE: Unspoken Reasons for Russio-Ukraine War: An Unawakened Consciousness Problem

Re: Is Artificial Life Conscious?

Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

16 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information