Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 13 Sep 2020, at 01:21, PGC wrote: > > > > On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 11:43:48 AM UTC+2 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 9 Sep 2020, at 16:29, PGC > > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 11:38:32 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> With Mechanism, we do have an

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 11:43:48 AM UTC+2 Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 9 Sep 2020, at 16:29, PGC wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 11:38:32 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> With Mechanism, we do have an ontological reductionism: only numbers >> exist, with only

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 11 Sep 2020, at 15:49, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:31 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: >> >>>I gave you the answer for year, but it asks for distinguishing the 1p and >> >>>the 3p > >> And that is absolutely positively 100% impossible because in a

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 11 Sep 2020, at 15:12, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:11 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > >> When self duplication becomes commonplace I think the English language > >> will need to change so much that what people will say would be > >>

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 11 Sep 2020, at 15:03, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:33 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: >  > >> when something that would now take paragraphs to explain becomes > >> intuitively obvious to everybody on a gut level people will say things in >

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 4:02 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > An interesting discussion of Everettian QM in two parts. The first part > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyvgBe9VV70 > > is just David Albert and Sean Carroll. It's quite

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

and greater 'civil conflict' in the month and years to come.  -Original Message- From: John Clark To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Sep 10, 2020 3:32 pm Subject: Re: Probability in Everettian QM On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:59 PM spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:   > I

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 3:06 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: *>You’re not giving an example of what people might say when the walk into > or out of duplication machines.* How can I answer that? There are a lot of things such a person might say in that situation, they might say it looks like

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 23:04, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:33 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > >> >>> >>> >> when >>> >>> something that would now take paragraphs to explain becomes intuitively >>> obvious to everybody on a gut level

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:31 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > *>>>I gave you the answer for year, but it asks for distinguishing the 1p >> and the 3p* >> > >> And that is absolutely positively 100% impossible because in a world >> where self duplication is common place there is no such thing as *THE*

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:11 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> When self duplication becomes commonplace I think the English language >> will need to change so much that what people will say would be >> incomprehensible to an English speaker in the early 21st century when self >> duplication was

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:33 AM Stathis Papaioannou wrote:  > >> when something that would now take paragraphs to explain becomes >> intuitively obvious to everybody on a gut level people will say things in a >> language whose grammar is totally different from anything spoken by anybody >>

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 10 Sep 2020, at 21:41, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 3:25 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: > > > When self duplication becomes commonplace I don't think the word "you" will > > exist anymore. > > > Why not? It

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 10 Sep 2020, at 20:29, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 9/10/2020 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> My own feeling is like Nozick's, which is best expressed by the old >>> American statement: "Close enough for government work.” >> >> OK. But that is

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 04:25, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:51 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > *>>> this is how people will talk. “I went through duplication, and I woke up in a little room.* >>> >>> >> I don't think so. When self duplication becomes

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 10 Sep 2020, at 15:07, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 5:36 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > >>> It has a perfectly clear referent, > > >> If it were perfectly clear then why doesn't Bruno Marchal use the referent > >> in Bruno Marchal's thought

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 10 Sep 2020, at 14:16, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:57 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > > this is how people will talk. “I went through duplication, and I woke up in > > a little room. > > I don't think so. When self duplication becomes

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 4:42 AM spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Now by this assessment, are some continuers closer than other? Is a > 99.9555 % continuer of say, Bruce, although not as perfect as the 100% > Bruce of the 21st century?? "Sorry about that

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/10/2020 12:41 PM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 3:25 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > When self duplication becomes commonplaceI don't think the word "you" will exist anymore. /> Why not?  It still

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 3:25 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > When self duplication becomes commonplace I don't think the word "you" >> will exist anymore. > > * > Why not? It still works where there are identical twins. * Now Brent be

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:59 PM spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > * > I did mean Sean Carroll and it was he who argues against (2017) that a > clone, even a perfect one, is never you,* > I had thought I had read all of Sean Carroll's books but perhaps I

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/10/2020 11:24 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:51 PM Stathis Papaioannou mailto:stath...@gmail.com>> wrote: />>> this is how people will talk. “I went through duplication, and I woke up in a little room./ >> I don't think so. When self

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

pressure from Globalist oligarch$ who would rather do without the middle classes. (Sorry JC! I just needed to respond to Bruno).  -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Sep 10, 2020 6:14 am Subject: Re: Probability in Everettian QM On 10

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

ood enough for government work. -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Sep 10, 2020 5:29 am Subject: Re: Probability in Everettian QM On 9 Sep 2020, at 12:45, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 10:35 PM Bruce Kell

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/10/2020 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: My own feeling is like Nozick's, which is best expressed by the old American statement: "Close enough for government work.” OK. But that is utilitarianism. You cannot be serious on this, or you are mixing religion/moral/ethics with politics and the

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:51 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: *>>> this is how people will talk. “I went through duplication, and I woke >>> up in a little room.* >>> >> >> >> I don't think so. When self duplication becomes commonplace I think >> the English language will need to change so much

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 22:17, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:57 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > *> this is how people will talk. “I went through duplication, and I woke >> up in a little room.* >> > > I don't think so. When self duplication becomes commonplace I think the >

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 5:36 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> *It has a perfectly clear referent,* >> >> >> If it were perfectly clear then why doesn't Bruno Marchal use the refere >> nt in Bruno Marchal's thought experiments rather than a personal pronoun? >> John Clark has been asking Bruno

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:57 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: *> this is how people will talk. “I went through duplication, and I woke up > in a little room.* > I don't think so. When self duplication becomes commonplace I think the English language will need to change so much that what people will

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

dudum celebrari > praeter in Socialās ex timore! :-D That is the main problem with Trump. His disdain for facts and for the search of truth. We can suppose he has some good reason to behave like this, and I guess they are not very pretty. Bruno > > > -Original Message- >

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 9 Sep 2020, at 16:29, PGC wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 11:38:32 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 9 Sep 2020, at 07:51, Stathis Papaioannou > > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 14:56, Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 2:49 PM Stathis

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 9 Sep 2020, at 13:01, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:40 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > It has a perfectly clear referent, > > If it were perfectly clear then why doesn't Bruno Marchal use the referent in > Bruno Marchal's thought experiments

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 9 Sep 2020, at 12:45, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 10:35 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > >Not on the closest continuer theory. If there is a tie, there is no unique > >closest continuer. If there is only one continuer, he is necessarily

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

! :-D   -Original Message- From: John Clark To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2020 7:01 am Subject: Re: Probability in Everettian QM On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:40 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > It has a perfectly clear referent, If it were perfectly clear then why doesn

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/9/2020 1:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 00:38, John Clark > wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 6:18 AM Stathis Papaioannou mailto:stath...@gmail.com>> wrote: /> You could say the “you” is at best ambiguous and at worst

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 00:38, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 6:18 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > >> *> You could say the “you” is at best ambiguous and at worst meaningless >> in this case.* >> > > Yes, and that means a thought experiment that uses that personal pronoun > and

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 2:09 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> None of the identical copies becomes separate people until one of them >> sees something the others do not, because after that they are no longer >> identical > > > * > That's an

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/9/2020 3:32 AM, John Clark wrote: None of the identical copies becomes separate people until one of them sees something the others do not, because after that they are no longer identical That's an exaggeration.  There are many things that will differentiate the copies other than what

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/9/2020 12:29 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le mer. 9 sept. 2020 à 09:14, Bruce Kellett > a écrit : On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:50 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote: On 9/8/2020 10:51 PM,

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/9/2020 12:14 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:50 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 9/8/2020 10:51 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 14:56, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>>

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 6:18 AM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > *> You could say the “you” is at best ambiguous and at worst meaningless > in this case.* > Yes, and that means a thought experiment that uses that personal pronoun and is supposed to clear up confusion regarding personal identity is

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 11:38:32 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 9 Sep 2020, at 07:51, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > > > On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 14:56, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 2:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou > > wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9 Sep 2020, 20:41 +1000, John Clark , wrote: > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 9:05 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > so the person who wakes up in your bed tomorrow is not you, but just > > >someone who thinks he is you. > > How would things be different if that were not true and the person who

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:40 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > *It has a perfectly clear referent,* > If it were perfectly clear then why doesn't Bruno Marchal use the referent in Bruno Marchal's thought experiments rather than a personal pronoun? John Clark has been asking Bruno Marchal to do that for

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 10:35 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: *>Not on the closest continuer theory. If there is a tie, there is no > unique closest continuer. If there is only one continuer, he is necessarily > the closest.* Closest continuer theory Is a remarkably silly theory even for philosophers,

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 9:05 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > *so the person who wakes up in your bed tomorrow is not you, but just > someone who thinks he is you.* How would things be different if that were not true and the person who wakes up in your bed tomorrow who thinks he's you really is

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 8:16 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > *A perfectly reasonable answer to the question asked the night before > duplication is: "I won't be in a room tomorrow morning, because when I am > duplicated with 100 continuers, I cease to exist * Suppose There were no duplication would

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 19:33, John Clark wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:14 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > > If there are 100 John Clarks tomorrow then John Clark has survived, > > > Yes. > > > because all it takes is one > > > Yes, so there is a 100% chance John Clark will see a

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 9 Sep 2020, at 07:51, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 14:56, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 2:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 12:35, Bruce Kellett

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:14 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > If there are 100 John Clarks tomorrow then John Clark has survived, Yes. > because all it takes is one Yes, so there is a 100% chance John Clark will see a prime number on his room number and a 100% chance John Clark will not see

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 9 Sep 2020, at 06:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 2:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 12:35, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 12:32 PM Stathis Papaioannou

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 9 Sep 2020, at 02:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 10:06 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 09:00, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 8:14 AM Stathis Papaioannou

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 8 Sep 2020, at 01:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 8:49 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 04:41, John Clark > wrote: > On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 9:34 AM Bruno Marchal

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 7 Sep 2020, at 16:33, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 9:29 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > >> In that thought experiment there is no objective probability because John > >> Clark is always in a prime numbered room or John Clark is not. So there is >

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 17:14, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:50 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> On 9/8/2020 10:51 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 14:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> >>> Be a

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

Le mer. 9 sept. 2020 à 09:46, Bruce Kellett a écrit : > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 5:29 PM Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> Le mer. 9 sept. 2020 à 09:14, Bruce Kellett a >> écrit : >> >>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:50 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 5:29 PM Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Le mer. 9 sept. 2020 à 09:14, Bruce Kellett a > écrit : > >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:50 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >>> On 9/8/2020 10:51 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>> >>> On

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 16:50, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/8/2020 10:51 PM, Stathis > > Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 14:56, > > Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

Le mer. 9 sept. 2020 à 09:14, Bruce Kellett a écrit : > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:50 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> On 9/8/2020 10:51 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 14:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> >>> Be a

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:50 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 9/8/2020 10:51 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 14:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> >> Be a dualist if you want to. But the closest continuer theory is a >>

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/8/2020 10:51 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 14:56, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 2:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou mailto:stath...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 12:35, Bruce Kellett

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 3:52 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 14:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> >> Be a dualist if you want to. But the closest continuer theory is a >> convention designed to resolve questions of personal identity in cases of >> personal duplication, absent a

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 14:56, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 2:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 12:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 12:32 PM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote: >>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 11:53, Bruce Kellett

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 2:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 12:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 12:32 PM Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 11:53, Bruce Kellett >>> wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 11:39 AM 'Brent Meeker'

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 12:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 12:32 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 11:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 11:39 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>>

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 12:32 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 11:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 11:39 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >>> On 9/8/2020 6:14 PM, smitra wrote: >>> > On 09-09-2020

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 11:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 11:39 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> On 9/8/2020 6:14 PM, smitra wrote: >> > On 09-09-2020 02:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> >> I don't find that answer convincing,

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/8/2020 6:53 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 11:39 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 9/8/2020 6:14 PM, smitra wrote: > On 09-09-2020 02:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> I don't find that answer convincing,

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 11:39 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On 9/8/2020 6:14 PM, smitra wrote: > > On 09-09-2020 02:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > >> I don't find that answer convincing, because of the implicit dualist > >> assumption. A perfectly

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/8/2020 6:14 PM, smitra wrote: On 09-09-2020 02:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 10:06 AM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 09:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 8:14 AM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 22:10, John Clark

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 11:14 AM smitra wrote: > On 09-09-2020 02:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 10:06 AM Stathis Papaioannou > > wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 09:00, Bruce Kellett > >> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 8:14 AM Stathis Papaioannou > >> wrote:

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 09-09-2020 02:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 10:06 AM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 09:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 8:14 AM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 22:10, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 6:49 PM

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 10:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 10:06 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 09:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 8:14 AM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote: >>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 22:10, John Clark wrote:

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 10:06 AM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 09:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 8:14 AM Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 22:10, John Clark wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 6:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 09:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 8:14 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 22:10, John Clark wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 6:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote: >>> >>> *> The probability of interest is that one

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 8:14 AM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 22:10, John Clark wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 6:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >> >> *> The probability of interest is that one particular John Clark will see >>> a prime number, not that some John

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 22:10, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 6:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > *> The probability of interest is that one particular John Clark will see >> a prime number, not that some John Clark will see a prime number. A gambler >> who buys a lottery ticket

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 6:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: *> The probability of interest is that one particular John Clark will see a > prime number, not that some John Clark will see a prime number. A gambler > who buys a lottery ticket is interested in the probability that one > particular

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 4:13 pm, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 3:44 PM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 09:06, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 8:49 AM Stathis Papaioannou >>> wrote: >>> On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 04:41, John Clark

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 3:44 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 09:06, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 8:49 AM Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 04:41, John Clark wrote: >>> On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 9:34 AM Bruno Marchal wrote:

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 09:06, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 8:49 AM Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 04:41, John Clark wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 9:34 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >> I don't know what the hell to make of a "objective

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 8:49 AM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 04:41, John Clark wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 9:34 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> I don't know what the hell to make of a "objective probability of a possible subjectivity”. >>> >>> >>> *> I give

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 04:41, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 9:34 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> I don't know what the hell to make of a "objective probability of a >>> possible subjectivity”. >> >> >> *> I give you an example. A person is multiplied by 100 and put in 100 >>

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 9:29 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> In that thought experiment there is no objective probability because >> John Clark is always in a prime numbered room or John Clark is not. So >> there is only subjective probability. There is a 100% chance John Clark >> will walk out, look

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 7 Sep 2020, at 13:06, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 6:50 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > >> Bruce takes the Born probability as the probability that some sequence > >> exists (i.e. 1) instead of the probability it is the observed sequence, ( >

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 7 Sep 2020, at 00:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 3:34 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: > > It's because Bruce takes the Born probability as the probability that some > sequence exists (i.e. 1) instead of the

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 6 Sep 2020, at 20:40, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 9:34 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > >> I don't know what the hell to make of a "objective probability of a > >> possible subjectivity”. > > > I give you an example. A person is multiplied by 100

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 6 Sep 2020, at 19:58, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > This is a reasonable account of teleporation. I agree too, … except for minor technical details (already discussed with Bruce, and I guess Bruce will not be convinced by Vaidman, nor by my slight corrections, which is mainly that a

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 6 Sep 2020, at 19:53, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > Do you have a paper explaining this? No. It is a recent finding. But it is almost trivial, the difficulties are in the "descriptive set theory". I have thought wrongly that allowing the full measure on the

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 6:50 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: >> Bruce takes the Born probability as the probability that some sequence >> exists (i.e. 1) instead of the probability it is the observed sequence, ( >> |a|^2 ). >> > > *> That is the source of the disagreement. There are two possible >

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 08:50, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 3:34 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It's because Bruce takes the Born probability as the probability >> >> that some sequence

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 3:34 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > It's because Bruce takes the Born probability as the probability that some > sequence exists (i.e. 1) instead of the probability it is the observed > sequence, ( |a|^2 ). > That is

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 9:34 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> I don't know what the hell to make of a "objective probability of a >> possible subjectivity”. > > > *> I give you an example. A person is multiplied by 100 and put in 100 > different, but identical from inside rooms. Just the number of the

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

This is a reasonable account of teleporation. LC On Sunday, September 6, 2020 at 12:03:30 PM UTC-5 sce...@libero.it wrote: > BTW I've found that quote by Vaidman. > 'In the framework of the MWI, *the teleportation procedure does not move > the quantum state: the state was, in some sense, in

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

Do you have a paper explaining this? Brent On 9/6/2020 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I think you are helping yourself to probabilities by implicitly assuming a measure. It is not obvious, but there is a measure for the first person views, plural ([]p & <>t) and singular ([]p & p, []p &

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On 9/6/2020 5:05 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 7:59 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: /> The important point that I am taking from Everett is that the Schrodinger equation is the whole of quantum physics (Carroll's idea). If the wave function

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

BTW I've found that quote by Vaidman. 'In the framework of the MWI, the teleportation procedure does not move the quantum state: the state was, in some sense, in the remote location from the beginning. The correlated pair, which is the necessary item for teleportation, incorporates all

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

On Sunday, September 6, 2020 at 7:06:09 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 7:59 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > *the charge is one of inconsistency* > > > Yes that is the charge. No I don't see any inconsistency. > > John K Clark > A part of what I was trying to point

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 6 Sep 2020, at 08:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 3:37 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: > On 9/5/2020 6:07 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 10:25 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

> On 6 Sep 2020, at 01:59, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > So why do you defend Carroll and Everett? Even self-locating uncertainty is > an essentially probabilistic idea. Glad to hear that :) Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List"

  1   2   >