The understanding of modal realism may be indicated from the results of this
graphene experiment. It seems to postulate a twin, tidally locked world duo. It
is, as it were, Everett's MWI interacting, perhaps down on Planck-ville?
On 5/15/2022 12:11 AM, smitra wrote:
On 15-05-2022 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 1:17 AM smitra wrote:
On 13-05-2022 21:59, Brent Meeker wrote:
Right CI doesn't explain the collapse and MWI doesn't explain the
collapse either but assumes it can be explained without
On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 5:53 PM smitra wrote:
> On 15-05-2022 09:30, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 5:11 PM smitra wrote:
> >
> >> On 15-05-2022 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >>> On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 1:17 AM smitra wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Yes. And decoherence says that
On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 6:45 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
*> As I have pointed out, no finite number can be "sufficiently large". You
> need an infinite number of branches,*
I have no idea how you figured that.
> *> the SE only ever predicts a finite number of branches. *
That depends on the
On 15-05-2022 09:30, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 5:11 PM smitra wrote:
On 15-05-2022 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 1:17 AM smitra wrote:
The big advantage is that decoherence is a well researched area
of
(mathematical) physics, results like the
On 15-05-2022 05:11, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/14/2022 3:55 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 1:17 AM smitra wrote:
On 13-05-2022 21:59, Brent Meeker wrote:
Right CI doesn't explain the collapse and MWI doesn't explain
the
collapse either but assumes it can be explained
On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 5:11 PM smitra wrote:
> On 15-05-2022 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 1:17 AM smitra wrote:
> >
> >> The big advantage is that decoherence is a well researched area of
> >> (mathematical) physics, results like the density matrix becoming
> >>
On 15-05-2022 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 1:17 AM smitra wrote:
On 13-05-2022 21:59, Brent Meeker wrote:
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
On 14-05-2022 21:11, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/14/2022 8:16 AM, smitra wrote:
On 13-05-2022 21:59, Brent Meeker wrote:
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
On 5/14/2022 3:55 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 1:17 AM smitra wrote:
On 13-05-2022 21:59, Brent Meeker wrote:
> Right CI doesn't explain the collapse and MWI doesn't explain the
> collapse either but assumes it can be explained without new
physics.
>
On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 1:17 AM smitra wrote:
> On 13-05-2022 21:59, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> > 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
On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 5:03 AM Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 4:35 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
>
> The trouble is that the duplicating machine makes only one copy, so there
> is one for Moscow and one for Helsinki. There are no multiple copies in the
> original scenario. Changing the nature
On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 3:03 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
> *I think it's possible to do it *[assign probabilities] *with branch
> counting if you assume some sufficiently large number are available to
> split...but that's not much different than assigning amplitudes.*
Agreed.
John K ClarkSee
On 5/14/2022 8:16 AM, smitra wrote:
On 13-05-2022 21:59, Brent Meeker wrote:
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
On 5/14/2022 4:35 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 9:19 PM John Clark wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 10:41 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:
>> After my body has been duplicated but before I have open
the door of the duplicating chamber to see where I
On 14-05-2022 03:06, Bruce Kellett wrote:
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
On 13-05-2022 22:06, Brent Meeker wrote:
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
On 13-05-2022 21:59, Brent Meeker wrote:
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
On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 7:35 AM Bruce Kellett wrote:
*>>> So how do you accommodate a situation in which there is a 90% chance
>>> of seeing Moscow and a 10% chance of seeing Helsinki?*
>>>
>>
>> >> You've asked that exact same question several times before so I'll
>> answer it the exact same
On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 2:27 AM Quentin Anciaux wrote:
*> It has taken almost 20 years, but finally you acknowledge first person
> indeterminacy...*
Well I have always acknowledged that if a conscious brain is exactly
duplicated then there is only 1 conscious experience not 2 because the 2
On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 9:19 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 10:41 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> >> 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
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 10:41 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:
>> 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
On Sat, 14 May 2022 at 12:06, 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
Le sam. 14 mai 2022, 04:06, John Clark a écrit :
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
On 12-05-2022 01:01, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 8:36 AM smitra wrote:
On 11-05-2022 07:42, Brent Meeker 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
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
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
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
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,
On 11-05-2022 07:30, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 3:16 PM smitra wrote:
On 11-05-2022 06:01, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 1:51 PM smitra wrote:
On 09-05-2022 00:42, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Such models are certainly inconsistent with the SE. So if your
On 11-05-2022 07:28, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/10/2022 8:17 PM, smitra wrote:
On 09-05-2022 00:42, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:37 AM smitra wrote:
On 08-05-2022 05:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:
It is when you take the SE to imply that all possible outcomes
exist
on each
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
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 8:36 AM smitra wrote:
> On 11-05-2022 07:42, Brent Meeker 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
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
On 11-05-2022 07:42, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/10/2022 9:47 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
On 11-05-2022 07:25, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/10/2022 8:11 PM, smitra wrote:
On 09-05-2022 00:34, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:52 AM smitra wrote:
On 08-05-2022 06:04, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 11:21 AM smitra wrote:
The issues with branches etc. are
On 11-05-2022 07:39, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/10/2022 9:43 PM, smitra wrote:
On 11-05-2022 06:01, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 1:51 PM smitra wrote:
On 09-05-2022 00:42, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Such models are certainly inconsistent with the SE. So if your
concern
is that
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
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
On 5/10/2022 11:14 PM, 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
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 1:25 AM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> * > Well, there's a big fat hint that it [SE] breaks down FAPP in every
> measurement, in every bit of physics that appears classical and
> irreversible. *
The thing is, whenever somebody says FAPP they really don't mean for *ALL*
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 1:25 AM Bruce Kellett wrote:
*> The SE also has many problems*
The Schrodinger equation has ONE problem, SE can't account for gravity;
General Relativity can but GR can't account for anything else. Maybe when
we find one physical idea that covers everything it will
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
On 5/10/2022 9:47 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
On 5/10/2022 9:43 PM, smitra wrote:
On 11-05-2022 06:01, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 1:51 PM smitra wrote:
On 09-05-2022 00:42, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Such models are certainly inconsistent with the SE. So if your
concern
is that the SE does not contain provision for a
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 3:16 PM smitra wrote:
> On 11-05-2022 06:01, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 1:51 PM smitra wrote:
> >
> >> On 09-05-2022 00:42, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Such models are certainly inconsistent with the SE. So if your concern
> >>> is that the SE
On 5/10/2022 8:17 PM, smitra wrote:
On 09-05-2022 00:42, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:37 AM smitra wrote:
On 08-05-2022 05:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:
It is when you take the SE to imply that all possible outcomes
exist
on each trial. That gives all outcomes equal
On 5/10/2022 8:11 PM, smitra wrote:
On 09-05-2022 00:34, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:52 AM smitra wrote:
On 08-05-2022 06:04, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 11:21 AM smitra wrote:
The issues with branches etc. are likely just artifacts with
making
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
On 11-05-2022 06:01, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 1:51 PM smitra wrote:
On 09-05-2022 00:42, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Such models are certainly inconsistent with the SE. So if your
concern
is that the SE does not contain provision for a collapse, then you
should doubt other
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 --
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
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 1:51 PM smitra wrote:
> On 09-05-2022 00:42, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >
> > Such models are certainly inconsistent with the SE. So if your concern
> > is that the SE does not contain provision for a collapse, then you
> > should doubt other theories that violate the SE. You
On 09-05-2022 00:34, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:52 AM smitra wrote:
On 08-05-2022 06:04, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 11:21 AM smitra wrote:
The issues with branches etc. are likely just artifacts with
making
hidden assumptions about branches. At the
On 09-05-2022 00:42, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:37 AM smitra wrote:
On 08-05-2022 05:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:
It is when you take the SE to imply that all possible outcomes
exist
on each trial. That gives all outcomes equal status.
All outcomes can exist without these
On 09-05-2022 01:00, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/8/2022 1:50 PM, smitra wrote:
On 08-05-2022 06:03, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/7/2022 6:21 PM, smitra wrote:
On 05-05-2022 00:04, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/4/2022 12:27 PM, smitra wrote:
In
fact, that idea introduces a raft of problems of its own --
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 3:18 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>> And all of that is fundamentally the same as "shut up and calculate ",
>> they're just dressed up in slightly different philosophical bafflegab.
>
>
> * > They're not "dressed up", they are perfectly explicit in their
> interpretation and
On 5/9/2022 3:36 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 7:00 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/8/2022 1:50 PM, smitra wrote:
>> That the CI is inconsistent with the Schrödinger equation
is easy to
>> see. If the Schrödinger is valid, then the state of a
On 5/9/2022 3:15 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 6:34 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:
/> The Everett program is to say that the SE is all that there is
-- it explains everything. /
No! The Everett program says the only assumption Quantum Mechanics
needs is that the
On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 7:00 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/8/2022 1:50 PM, smitra wrote:
>
> >> That the CI is inconsistent with the Schrödinger equation is easy to
>
> >> see. If the Schrödinger is valid, then the state of a system evolves
>
> >> in a unitary way. But after a real collapse the
On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 6:34 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
*> The Everett program is to say that the SE is all that there is -- it
> explains everything. *
No! The Everett program says the only assumption Quantum Mechanics needs is
that the Schrodinger Equation means what it says, and nobody in their
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 12:47 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 5/8/2022 5:39 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 10:32 AM Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/8/2022 5:25 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 10:17 AM Brent Meeker
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I don't think that's
On 5/8/2022 5:39 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 10:32 AM Brent Meeker
wrote:
On 5/8/2022 5:25 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 10:17 AM Brent Meeker
wrote:
On 5/8/2022 3:42 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:37
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 10:32 AM Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 5/8/2022 5:25 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 10:17 AM Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/8/2022 3:42 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:37 AM smitra wrote:
>>
>>> On 08-05-2022 05:58, Bruce Kellett
On 5/8/2022 5:25 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 10:17 AM Brent Meeker
wrote:
On 5/8/2022 3:42 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:37 AM smitra wrote:
On 08-05-2022 05:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> It is when you take the SE to imply
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 10:17 AM Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 5/8/2022 3:42 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:37 AM smitra wrote:
>
>> On 08-05-2022 05:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>> > It is when you take the SE to imply that all possible outcomes exist
>> > on each trial. That
On 5/8/2022 3:42 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:37 AM smitra wrote:
On 08-05-2022 05:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> It is when you take the SE to imply that all possible outcomes exist
> on each trial. That gives all outcomes equal status.
All outcomes can
On 5/8/2022 1:50 PM, smitra wrote:
On 08-05-2022 06:03, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/7/2022 6:21 PM, smitra wrote:
On 05-05-2022 00:04, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/4/2022 12:27 PM, smitra wrote:
In
fact, that idea introduces a raft of problems of its own -- what
is
the measure over this infinity
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:37 AM smitra wrote:
> On 08-05-2022 05:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> > It is when you take the SE to imply that all possible outcomes exist
> > on each trial. That gives all outcomes equal status.
>
> All outcomes can exist without these being equally likely. One can make
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:52 AM smitra wrote:
> On 08-05-2022 06:04, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 11:21 AM smitra wrote:
> >
> >> The issues with branches etc. are likely just artifacts with making
> >> hidden assumptions about branches. At the end of the day there are
> >>
On 08-05-2022 06:04, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 11:21 AM smitra wrote:
The issues with branches etc. are likely just artifacts with making
hidden assumptions about branches. At the end of the day there are
only
a finite number of states an observer can be in. If an observer
On 08-05-2022 06:03, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/7/2022 6:21 PM, smitra wrote:
On 05-05-2022 00:04, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/4/2022 12:27 PM, smitra wrote:
In
fact, that idea introduces a raft of problems of its own -- what
is
the measure over this infinity of branches? What does it mean to
On 08-05-2022 05:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 11:32 AM smitra wrote:
On 05-05-2022 01:15, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 5:27 AM smitra wrote:
On 04-05-2022 01:49, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I have not introduced any concept of probability. The 2^N
branches
On 08-05-2022 05:56, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 11:40 AM smitra wrote:
On 05-05-2022 01:57, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 5:27 AM smitra wrote:
Of course you can. The lottery example shows that even in
classical
physics you can imagine this happening. If
On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 7:18 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
*> Everett's theory does not attach a probability to branches -- it just
> says that they all happen. And that is the biggest failure of Everett's
> theory*
>
Now Bruce, we both know if probability didn't enter into Everett's idea
then his PhD
On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 2:24 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 5/7/2022 8:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> I think this boils down to the first person:third person confusion that
> Bruno often refers to.
> From the third person perspective, the outcome is certain. But from the
> first person perspective
On 5/7/2022 8:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 11:40 AM smitra wrote:
On 05-05-2022 01:57, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 5:27 AM smitra wrote:
>>
>> Of course you can. The lottery example shows that even in classical
>> physics you can
On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 11:21 AM smitra wrote:
>
> The issues with branches etc. are likely just artifacts with making
> hidden assumptions about branches. At the end of the day there are only
> a finite number of states an observer can be in. If an observer is
> modeled as an algorithm, take
1 - 100 of 615 matches
Mail list logo
