Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 1:45 AM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 7:55:14 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> But Sean Carroll says there are multiple Sean Carrolls that come into >> being as the MWI branches, so whatever charge

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 5:12 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 11/27/2019 11:51 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > This was the issue about mass raised weeks ago when Sean Carroll's book > came out. > > There has never been an answer. > > > If you

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 1:37 PM 'Brent Meeker' < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> That electron existed in a electrically neutral universe, if you >> multiply that by "a very large number" you've got a very large number of >> electrically >> neutral universes and charge conservation

Re: Branching on real-world decisions

On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 1:27 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 26 Nov 2019, at 22:39, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 12:27 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 25 Nov 2019, at 22:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> Because, the wave-function itself is non-local -- it contains entangled >>

Happy T-day

Happy Thanksgiving. well for those in the US, and always remember that a turkey is really just a modern evolved version of one of these: [image: Deinonychus_ewilloughby.png] This Cretaceous era Deinonychus weighed only 20kg and it could, if we went back in time, tear any of us up in seconds

Re: Happy T-day

In *Mysterious Island* (1961), they had one like that for dinner. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vsjpFhdNyc @philipthift On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 1:26:44 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 1:23:38 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >>

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 6:00:22 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 1:45 AM Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > >> On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 7:55:14 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> But Sean Carroll says there are multiple Sean Carrolls that come into >>> being

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 29-11-2019 01:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 1:45 AM Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 7:55:14 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: But Sean Carroll says there are multiple Sean Carrolls that come into being as the MWI branches, so whatever charge Sean

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 1:51:42 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 5:39:09 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 4:51:55 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 9:29 AM John Clark wrote: >>>

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 7:57:11 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 4:52:26 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 2:51 AM Philip Thrift wrote: >> >>> >> *> So the number of coulombs in a branching Many Worlds grows >>>

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 2:51 AM Philip Thrift wrote: > *> So the number of coulombs in a branching Many Worlds grows > exponentially .* > There are both positive coulombs and negative coulombs, when you add them all up in each branch you get exactly zero, and zero times a number, even a very

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

> On 11 Nov 2019, at 14:59, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 4:18 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > when I am duplicated in Washington and Moscow, I don’t feel personally to > > be in both cities at once. > > Then what one and only one city do "you"

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 7:26:39 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 1:51:42 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 5:39:09 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell >> wrote: >>> >>> On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 4:51:55

Re: Branching on real-world decisions

> On 26 Nov 2019, at 22:39, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 12:27 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > On 25 Nov 2019, at 22:53, Bruce Kellett > wrote: >> Because, the wave-function itself is non-local -- it contains entangled

Re: The problem with physics

> On 26 Nov 2019, at 14:49, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 7:11 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > > >> thought exparament because there is no way to determine who won and who > >> lost or even nail down exactly what the bet was about, > > > No less

Re: The problem with physics

> On 26 Nov 2019, at 21:11, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 11/26/2019 4:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 21 Nov 2019, at 18:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> The sciences do not try to

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 4:52:26 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 2:51 AM Philip Thrift > wrote: > >> > *> So the number of coulombs in a branching Many Worlds grows >> exponentially .* >> > > There are both positive coulombs and negative coulombs, when you add

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 7:55:14 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 7:26:39 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 1:51:42 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 5:39:09 PM

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 8:14 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Then what one and only one city do "you" personally feel to be in? > > > *In the third person view on the first person view, you can say *[...] > What about the first person view of the third person view of the first person view? And what

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 9:37 PM John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 5:51 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> >>> Our branch of the multiverse is electrically neutral and it seems >>> likely all of them are, so preserving conservation of charge doesn't seem >>> like much of a problem. >>> >>

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 5:51 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> Our branch of the multiverse is electrically neutral and it seems >> likely all of them are, so preserving conservation of charge doesn't seem >> like much of a problem. >> > > > *> Consider firing an electron at a screen. There are a

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 7:07 AM Bruce Kellett wrote: > The trouble seems to be that this account is different from the account > given in the energy case, where we were supposed to weight the sub-branches > by their corresponding Born weights. That's because the charge conservation explanation

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 11/27/2019 10:21 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 5:19 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 11/27/2019 6:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:49 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

Le jeu. 28 nov. 2019 à 15:50, John Clark a écrit : > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 8:14 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> Then what one and only one city do "you" personally feel to be in? >> >> > > > *In the third person view on the first person view, you can say *[...] >> > > What about the first

Re: The problem with physics

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 9:43 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> In Everett's theory it's easy to specify exactly what the bet is about >> because after its all over it's clear who has won, > > > *> In each branch. But that is the case in the WM classical duplication > too.* > No it is not. In the

Re: Superdeterminism in comics

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:01 AM Quentin Anciaux wrote: *>>Forget prediction!!* Even *AFTER* the experiment is long over you *STILL* >> can not answer the question "what city did you turn out to see?" >> > > *> Wait... what ? Sure you can, if you are the one who ended up in > moscow... you

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 9:53 AM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > *Much the same would happen if the cosmos has a net angular momentum, > where that spacetime would have features of the G**ödel universe.* And if the universe rotated then it would be possible to build

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 11/27/2019 11:51 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 5:39:09 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 4:51:55 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 9:29 AM John Clark wrote: On Wed, Nov 27,

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 12:12:22 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/27/2019 11:51 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 5:39:09 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 4:51:55 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Thu,

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On 11/28/2019 2:36 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 5:51 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: Our branch of the multiverse is electrically neutral and it seems likely all of them are, so preserving conservation of charge doesn't

Re: Energy conservation in many-worlds

On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 8:45:50 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > Really there are no duplicate Carroll's or Crowell's or anyone else. There > are amplitudes for such with a distribution given by a decoherent set, and > phenomenologically any of these in such a branch