Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 4:11 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 9/4/2020 11:27 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > No, listen carefully. Everett predicts that such a sequence will certainly > occur for any N. In other words, the probability of the

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/5/2020 4:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 4:11 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 9/4/2020 11:27 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: No, listen carefully. Everett predicts that such a sequence will certainly

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/5/2020 2:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 3 Sep 2020, at 16:17, John Clark > wrote: I don't understand Albert's position or the distinction he is trying to make. He says that If the world is deterministic and given his knowledge of the macro state of the

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/5/2020 2:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 4 Sep 2020, at 00:55, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 8:01 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: Sure. But Albert's argument is that in a

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Sunday, September 6, 2020 at 12:39:24 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > > > On 9/5/2020 3:31 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: > > > > On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 8:03:55 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > >> If there are an infinite number then frequency is ill defined and you >> have to introduce some

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 12:34 PM Philip Thrift wrote: >>If Everett is right then "John K Clark" can see both, but "I" can not. >> John K Clark >> > > *> This is how physics has become worse than flat-earth theory.* > How so? John K Clark -- You received this message because you are

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/5/2020 3:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 4 Sep 2020, at 14:24, John Clark > wrote: On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 7:59 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > /It has nothing to do with whether the world is deterministic or not: all that

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 8:03:55 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > If there are an infinite number then frequency is ill defined and you have > to introduce some measure...which is essentially the same as just > postulating a probability. This is something like Carroll's solution which > is to

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Saturday, September 5, 2020 at 8:11:57 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > There are some people who can't abide probabilistic theories and will > invent fantastic worlds in order to have a deterministic ensemble which > then must be reduced by ignorance to agree with observation. They then > feel

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/5/2020 3:31 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 8:03:55 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote: If there are an infinite number then frequency is ill defined and you have to introduce some measure...which is essentially the same as just postulating a probability. This is

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/4/2020 11:27 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 3:52 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 9/4/2020 10:18 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 2:42 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> > > If Everett is right then "John K Clark" can see both, but "I" can not. > > John K Clark > This is how physics has become worse than flat-earth theory. @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 3 Sep 2020, at 16:17, John Clark wrote: > > I don't understand Albert's position or the distinction he is trying to make. > He says that If the world is deterministic and given his knowledge of the > macro state of the world right now he thinks there is a 75% chance the > Yankees will

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 5 Sep 2020, at 01:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 5:37 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: > On 9/4/2020 4:43 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 9:32 PM smitra > > wrote:

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 5 Sep 2020, at 08:27, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 3:52 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: > On 9/4/2020 10:18 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 2:42 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 3:52 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 9/4/2020 10:18 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 2:42 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> On 9/4/2020 7:02 PM,

Re: QM gets personal

Jim Baggott responded to Sabine Hossenfelder on Twitter (- they interact frequently there): "I didn’t cover superdeterminism because I had to be selective, and my judgement was based in part on interpretations that have gained some traction or attracted attention. I omitted Cramer’s

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 6:05 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> If things are deterministic then there's no such thing as objective >> chance, and probability would just be a measure of our degree of >> ignorance of hidden causes. > > > *> What would be an hidden cause in the case of the

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 5:28 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > Hugh Everett would say pretty much the same thing because he also > believes we live in a deterministic world. Originally he may have only a > vague idea of which branch of the multiverse is being observed and so he > thinks there's a 50%

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 4 Sep 2020, at 13:32, smitra wrote: > > Even if the MWI is false and the wavefunction collapses to produce only one > of the possible outcomes with a probability given by the Born rule, you'll > still get all possibilities realized in a generic infinite universe, whether > it's

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 4 Sep 2020, at 08:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 4:40 PM Quentin Anciaux > wrote: > Le ven. 4 sept. 2020 à 00:01, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > a écrit : > Sure. But Albert's argument is

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 4 Sep 2020, at 14:24, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 7:59 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > > It has nothing to do with whether the world is deterministic or not: all > > that is involved is that there is some objective chance of this particular

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 5 Sep 2020, at 04:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 11:29 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: > On 9/4/2020 4:00 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 5:37 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 4 Sep 2020, at 15:36, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 7:43 AM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > > Applying the Born rule to the repeated measurement scenario tells you that > > the probability of the extreme branches is low; whereas, the idea that all

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 5 Sep 2020, at 01:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:03 AM Lawrence Crowell > mailto:goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com>> > wrote: > On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 6:21:49 AM UTC-5 Bruce wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 7:49 PM Lawrence Crowell > > wrote: > On Friday,

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 04-09-2020 13:43, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 9:32 PM smitra wrote: Even if the MWI is false and the wavefunction collapses to produce only one of the possible outcomes with a probability given by the Born rule, you'll still get all possibilities realized in a generic

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 4 Sep 2020, at 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 8:01 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: > Sure. But Albert's argument is that in a single, probabilistic world that > implements Born's rule, the number of

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 4 Sep 2020, at 13:43, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 9:32 PM smitra > wrote: > Even if the MWI is false and the wavefunction collapses to produce only > one of the possible outcomes with a probability given by the Born rule, > you'll still get

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 10:25 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 9/5/2020 4:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > So why do you defend Carroll and Everett? Even self-locating uncertainty > is an essentially probabilistic idea. > > > I don't defend

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/5/2020 6:07 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 10:25 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 9/5/2020 4:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: So why do you defend Carroll and Everett? Even self-locating uncertainty is