Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 9:27 PM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 9:06:12 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:20 AM Lawrence Crowell < >> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Objective probabilities are frequentism.

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:20 AM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 1:57:19 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 11:04 PM Lawrence Crowell < >> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> There is nothing wrong formally with what

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 5:18 AM smitra wrote: > > Deriving the Born rule within the context of QM seems to me a rather > futile effort as you still have the formalism of QM itself that is then > unexplained. So, I think one has to tackle QM itself. It seems t me > quite plausible that QM gives

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 11:04 PM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > There is nothing wrong formally with what you argue. I would though say > this is not entirely the Born rule. The Born rule connects eigenvalues with > the probabilities of a wave function. For quantum

Re: General Relativity and Noether's theorem

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:09 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > On Thursday, May 14, 2020 at 6:03:51 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> On Monday, May 11, 2020 at 12:42:03 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:24 PM Alan Grayson >>> wrote: >>> Thinking further about this, I

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 3:30 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 5/12/2020 10:08 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 2:06 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote

Re: Deriving the Born Rule

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 2:06 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 5/12/2020 7:12 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > If we now turn our attention to the quantum case, we have a > > measurement (or sequence of measurements) o

Deriving the Born Rule

The meaning of probability and the origin of the Born rule has been seem as one of the outstanding problems for Everettian quantum theory. Attempts by Carroll and Sebens, and Zurek to derive the Born rule have considered probability in terms of the outcome of a single experiment where the

Re: General Relativity and Noether's theorem

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:24 PM Alan Grayson wrote: > > Thinking further about this, I prefer my original hypothesis above, that > the cosmological red-shift doesn't imply real loss of energy. It's just an > apparent effect due to relative motion, the usual Doppler shift. AG > The cosmologist

Re: Total energy of the universe

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:02 PM Alan Grayson wrote: > On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 4:24:36 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 7:11 PM Alan Grayson wrote: >> >>> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 2:56:50 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 6:00 PM Alan Grayson

Re: Total energy of the universe

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 7:11 PM Alan Grayson wrote: > On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 2:56:50 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 6:00 PM Alan Grayson wrote: >> >>> If it's not conserved, as seems implied by the red shift due to >>> expansion, where does it go? TIA, AG >>> >> >> Silly

Re: Total energy of the universe

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 6:00 PM Alan Grayson wrote: > If it's not conserved, as seems implied by the red shift due to expansion, > where does it go? TIA, AG > Silly question. If it is not conserved, it does't have to go anywhere -- it just vanishes. Bruce -- You received this message because

Re: Change of pace; question on WW1 history / LC?

On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:40 AM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > > When the Vikings reigned supreme the western world was pretty much in > disarray. The Europeans who took the hardest blows from Vikings were the > Merovingian Franks of 500 to 700 CE. The Franks were

Re: Position-Momentum vs. Time-Energy Uncertainty

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 3:59 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 4/15/2020 10:37 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > Can you give a concrete example where the time-energy form of the UP can > be applied to? I once had an example, but can't recall what

Re: Position-Momentum vs. Time-Energy Uncertainty

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 2:07 AM Jason Resch wrote: > There has been controversy in > the meaning/interpretation of the Time-Energy uncertainty relation in > quantum mechanics, but relatively none regarding the meaning of the > position-momentum

Re: Pauli's Exclusion Principle

On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 7:36 PM Russell Standish wrote: > I thought the principle came from antisymmetry of fermionic pairwise > wavefunctions. If two fermions occupied the same state, then > antisymmetry is impossible. Bosons have symmetric pairwise > wavefunctions (you can swap two bosons, and

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:49 AM Alina Gutoreva wrote: > I think this is the time when I would like to ACTUALLY understand what > you are talking about... > > I think this is important, but you lost me on nimimi: > > N!/M!*M! > > > Would appreciate any examples from personal-life-perspecitve

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 8:54 AM Russell Standish wrote: > On Sun, Mar 08, 2020 at 10:10:23PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > > > In order to infer a probability of p = 0.5, your branch data > must > > have > > > > approximately e

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 11:54 PM smitra wrote: > On 08-03-2020 11:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > Yes, I think the Carroll's comment was just sloppy. The trouble is > > that this sort of sloppiness permeates all of these discussions. As > > you say, probability really

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 5:29 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 3/8/2020 3:56 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 7:46 PM Russell Standish > wrote: > >> On Sun, Mar 08, 2020 at 06:50:52PM +1100, Bruce

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 7:59 PM Russell Standish wrote: > On Sun, Mar 08, 2020 at 07:08:25PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 6:14 PM Russell Standish > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 09:45:38PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 7:46 PM Russell Standish wrote: > On Sun, Mar 08, 2020 at 06:50:52PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 5:32 PM Russell Standish > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 10:44:37AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > >

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 6:14 PM Russell Standish wrote: > On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 09:45:38PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 5:26 PM Russell Standish > wrote: > > > > But a very large proportion of them (→1 as N→∞) will report being

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 5:32 PM Russell Standish wrote: > On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 10:44:37AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > That is, in fact, false. It does not generate the same strings as > flipping a > > coin in single world. Sure, each of the strings in Ever

Re: Why physics has become fantasy fiction

On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 3:10 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 3/7/2020 7:38 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > I think the Transactional Interpretation has additional problems, such as > forward (or backward?) in time signaling. > > > Ruth Kastner

Re: Why physics has become fantasy fiction

On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 11:25 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 1:22:30 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> Sean Carroll >> @seanmcarroll >> · >> What really happens to Schrödinger’s cat is that it becomes entangled >> with its environment, so that the wave function comes

Re: Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why

On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 12:51 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 3/6/2020 3:55 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 10:17 AM John Clark wrote: > >> This video just went online, I thought it was excellen

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 1:04 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > What do you think about identifying what one finds as an observer as a > probability of being one of the leaves of the branching MWI tree, i.e. > interpreting self-location uncertainty

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:22 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 3/5/2020 10:07 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > In the full set of all 2^N branches there will, of course, be branches in > which this is the case. But that is just

Re: Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why

On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 10:17 AM John Clark wrote: > This video just went online, I thought it was excellent: > > Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why > > > John K Clark > Impressive graphics, but the same oldsame old Bruce -- You

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:22 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 3/5/2020 10:07 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 11:33 AM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 11:08 AM 'Brent

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 11:33 AM Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 11:08 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> On 3/5/2020 3:33 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> No, it doesn't. Just think about what e

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 11:08 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 3/5/2020 3:33 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 11:14 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 3/5/2020 3:44 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > OR postulate that the splits are into many copies so that the branch count >> gives the Born statistics. >> &

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 10:15 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 3/5/2020 1:57 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 8:08 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 10:18 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 3/5/2020 2:01 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 8:17 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 8:17 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 3/5/2020 3:07 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > there is no "weight" that differentiates different branches. >> >> >> Then the Born

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 8:08 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 3/5/2020 2:45 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > Now sequences with small departures from equal numbers will still give > probabilities within the confidenc

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 10:05 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 5 Mar 2020, at 05:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 3:23 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> On 3/4/2020 7:54 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 9:59 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 5 Mar 2020, at 04:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 2:02 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> On 3/4/2020 6:45 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >&g

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 9:46 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 5 Mar 2020, at 01:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 10:39 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 at 09:46, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> >>> The greater pro

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 9:39 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 5 Mar 2020, at 00:39, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > I think it worth noting that to some people it is obvious that if an > entity is to be duplicated in two places it should have a 1/2 expectation > of finding itself in one or other

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 5:26 PM Russell Standish wrote: > On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 11:34:55AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 10:39 AM Russell Standish > wrote: > > > > ISTM - probability is all about what an observer observes. Since the > &g

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 3:23 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 3/4/2020 7:54 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 2:02 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 2:02 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 3/4/2020 6:45 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:34 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:34 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 3/4/2020 6:18 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > But one cannot just assume the Born rule in this case -- one has to use > the data to verify the prob

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 12:41 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 3/4/2020 4:48 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 10:50 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wro

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 12:51 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 3/4/2020 5:25 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 11:59 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 11:59 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 3/4/2020 4:34 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > The crux of the matter is that all branches are equivalent when both > outcomes occur on every trial, so all

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 10:50 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 3/4/2020 2:43 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 9:15 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wr

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 10:39 AM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 at 09:46, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> >> The greater problem is that any idea of probability founders when all >> outcomes occur for any measurement. Or have you not followed the argumen

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 10:39 AM Russell Standish wrote: > On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 09:46:34AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > The greater problem is that any idea of probability founders when all > outcomes > > occur for any measurement. Or have you not followed the ar

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 9:31 AM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 at 08:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 11:01 PM Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 08:40, Bruce Kellett >>> wrote: >>>

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 9:15 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 3/4/2020 1:54 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 11:01 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> >> Probability derived from sel

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 11:01 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 08:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 4:21 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >>> On

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 4:21 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 2/27/2020 3:45 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > That is probably what all this argument is actually about -- the maths > show that there are no p

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 10:14 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 26 Feb 2020, at 23:58, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From the first person perspective, there is indeterminacy, > > > That is the whole point. That is the 1p-indeterminacy I am talking about > (and that Clark, and only

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:35 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 25 Feb 2020, at 12:43, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:26 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> In Helsinki, the guy write P(W) = P(M) = 1/2. That means he does not yet >> know what outc

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:26 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 2/25/2020 8:53 AM, smitra wrote: > > On 22-02-2020 01:20, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: > >> On 2/21/2020 4:00 PM, smitra wrote: > >>> On 16-02-2020 05:48, 'Brent Meeker'

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:26 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 24 Feb 2020, at 23:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 12:10 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 23 Feb 2020, at 23:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:21 AM Bruno Ma

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 12:10 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 23 Feb 2020, at 23:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:21 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 23 Feb 2020, at 04:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> >> I don't really understand your comm

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 11:29 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 23 Feb 2020, at 23:25, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:00 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 22 Feb 2020, at 05:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> >> I am not sure that I completely

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:21 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 23 Feb 2020, at 04:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > I don't really understand your comment. I was thinking of Bruno's > WM-duplication. You could impose the idea that each duplication at each > branch poi

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:07 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 22 Feb 2020, at 23:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > The arguments that I have developed here, based on Kent's insight, take > Many-worlds at face value. Then the theory is clearly incoherent, or at > least incompatible w

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 11:36 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 21 Feb 2020, at 11:41, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 9:30 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> But that argument would work for coin tossing too. That eliminate >> basically all probabili

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:00 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 22 Feb 2020, at 05:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > I am not sure that I completely understand what Zurek has done here. The > problem of carrying the initial amplitdues through a sequence of repeated > tria

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 5:04 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 2/22/2020 9:50 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > It is imposed in such a way as to agree with experiment, yes. But that is > how the Born rule was arrived at in

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 4:30 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 2/22/2020 7:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > The trouble is that such a procedure is entirely arbitrary. The only > probability that one could objectively assi

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 10:56 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 2/22/2020 2:39 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 9:23 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: &

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 9:23 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 2/22/2020 2:10 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 7:17 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com>

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 7:17 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 2/21/2020 10:31 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 4:50 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 4:50 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Yes, Zurek is hard to follow since he seems to use unusal terminology > sometimes. Attached is a good discussion of his method by Schlosshauer and > Fine which I find useful > Yes,

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 2:42 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 2/21/2020 5:50 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > I know that they argue in this way. But that is just say "It must be this > way or else my theory fails.&q

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 12:43 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 2/21/2020 4:57 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 11:35 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 11:35 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 2/21/2020 4:19 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 11:11 AM smitra wrote: > >> On 16-02-2020 06:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> > >

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 11:11 AM smitra wrote: > On 16-02-2020 06:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > The probabilistic interpretation of QM arose in a single-world, > > collapse, model. Attempting to graft probability on to many-worlds is > > a failure, as my arg

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 6:00 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 2/21/2020 2:41 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > You still don't get it, do you? The argument applies to all possible bit > strings of length N. You do not get tha

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 9:30 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 21 Feb 2020, at 04:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Brent Meeker > > Of course that's true. But the more relevant value is the fraction of > sequences with the proportion of 1s within some narrow range of 0

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

From: *Brent Meeker* mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> On 2/20/2020 5:52 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 12:08 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote: On 2/20/2020 4:26 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Th

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 12:08 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 2/20/2020 4:26 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > >> This argument has worried me, so I thought that some serious calculations >> were in order. If you have

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:32 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 20 Feb 2020, at 06:12, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 4:13 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> On 2/16/2020 2:17 PM, Bruce Kellett wr

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 4:13 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 2/16/2020 2:17 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > No,that argument is mistaken, as Kent's general argument in terms of the > binomial expansion shows. All 2^

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:20 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 18 Feb 2020, at 23:14, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:05 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 18 Feb 2020, at 02:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> And if the probabilities are t

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:52 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 18 Feb 2020, at 23:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:41 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 17 Feb 2020, at 22:50, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> > Again, you use the 3p view to refute a 1p perc

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:05 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 18 Feb 2020, at 02:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > And if the probabilities are to be objective > > > They have to be at least first person plural. > 'Objective', as I use the word here, means 'interper

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:41 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 17 Feb 2020, at 22:50, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 1:15 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 16 Feb 2020, at 23:17, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> They clearly can't all be right, so eith

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:37 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 2/17/2020 4:09 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 9:46 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 9:46 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 2/17/2020 2:11 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 6:04 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: &

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 1:15 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 16 Feb 2020, at 23:17, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > They clearly can't all be right, so either there is no actual probability > underlying the events and their calculations are misguided, or the theory > itsel

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 6:04 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 2/16/2020 9:48 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 4:13 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wr

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 6:04 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 2/16/2020 9:48 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 4:13 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: &

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 4:13 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 2/16/2020 2:17 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > That is where the proof given by Kent comes into play. If in the N trials > you observe pN zeros and (1-p)N

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 1:27 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 14 Feb 2020, at 22:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 1:35 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> Just to be clear, are you OK with P(W) = 1/2 in the WM-duplicatipon, when >> “W” refers

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 6:11 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 2/15/2020 10:03 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 3:17 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: &

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 5:16 PM Alan Grayson wrote: > On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 11:04:06 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 3:17 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> There is nothing which guarantees that all

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 3:17 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 2/14/2020 2:17 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > I attach an extract from Kent's paper. Take up your argument with him if > you think he has got the statistics wrong.

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 4:30 AM smitra wrote: > On 10-02-2020 08:17, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > This proves that Everett's approach from the SE, where there is only > > one branch for each possible outcome in a single trial, cannot account > > for the way in which ex

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 9:03 AM Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Le ven. 14 févr. 2020 à 22:57, Bruce Kellett a > écrit : > >> On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 8:50 AM Quentin Anciaux >> wrote: >> >>> Le ven. 14 févr. 2020 à 22:48, Bruce Kellett a >>> écrit : &

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 8:50 AM Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Le ven. 14 févr. 2020 à 22:48, Bruce Kellett a > écrit : > >> On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 1:35 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> >>> Just to be clear, are you OK with P(W) = 1/2 in the WM-duplicatipon,

Re: Postulate: Everything that CAN happen, MUST happen.

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 1:35 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Just to be clear, are you OK with P(W) = 1/2 in the WM-duplicatipon, when > “W” refers to the first person experience? > No. As I have said before, the H-man has no basis on which to assign any probability at all to the possibility that

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >