Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

Yes, it was. On 18 October 2013 20:51, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 17 Oct 2013, at 00:49, LizR wrote: > > By the way, my son (14) asked me the other day "what's the oddest prime > number?" > > Fortunately, I got the right answer! > > > I would say 2. LOL > > Was it 2 that you found? To be odd

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 17 Oct 2013, at 00:49, LizR wrote: By the way, my son (14) asked me the other day "what's the oddest prime number?" Fortunately, I got the right answer! I would say 2. LOL Was it 2 that you found? To be odd is very subjective here :) Bruno -- You received this message because yo

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

Or the largest prime number less than 10^120, because it's the biggest prime number...?!?!? :) There are two secrets to success. The first is not to give away everything you know... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscr

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 10/16/2013 3:49 PM, LizR wrote: By the way, my son (14) asked me the other day "what's the oddest prime number?" Fortunately, I got the right answer! 2, because it's the only one that's even. Brent "There are 10 kinds of people. Those who think in binary and those who don't." -- You rece

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

By the way, my son (14) asked me the other day "what's the oddest prime number?" Fortunately, I got the right answer! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 16 October 2013 06:02, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > Richard: I guess I am too much a physicist to believe that uncomputible > arithmetical truth can produce the physical. > Since you read my paper you know that I think computations in this > universe if holographic are limited to 10^120 bits (th

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 16 Oct 2013, at 17:41, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno Marchal via googlegroups.com 2:47 AM (8 hours ago) to everything-list On 15 Oct 2013, at 19:02, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: Arithmetical truth escapes largely the computable arithmetical truth (by Gödel). Richard: I guess I am

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:41:46AM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > > Measurement-induced collapse of quantum wavefunction captured in slow > motion. > http://www.nature.com/news/physicists-snatch-a-peep-into-quantum-paradox-1.13899?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20131015 > The headline is sensationlist and mi

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

Bruno Marchal via googlegroups.com 2:47 AM (8 hours ago) to everything-list On 15 Oct 2013, at 19:02, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: Arithmetical truth escapes largely the computable arithmetical truth (by Gödel). Richa

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 15 Oct 2013, at 23:04, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 01:02:13PM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: Arithmetical truth escapes largely the computable arithmetical truth (by Gödel). Richard: I guess I am too much a physicist to believe that uncomputible arithmetical

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 15 Oct 2013, at 19:39, meekerdb wrote: On 10/15/2013 7:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Oct 2013, at 12:45, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: On the contrary: I assume only that my brain (or generalized brain) is computable, then I show that basically all the rest is not. In everything,

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 15 Oct 2013, at 19:31, meekerdb wrote: On 10/15/2013 3:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/10/15 Richard Ruquist Bruno: On the contrary: I assume only that my brain (or generalized brain) is computable, then I show that basically all the rest is not. In everything, or just in arithmetic

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 01:02:13PM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote: > Bruno: Arithmetical truth escapes largely the computable arithmetical truth > (by Gödel). > > > Richard: I guess I am too much a physicist to believe that uncomputible > arithmetical truth can produce the physical. > Since you rea

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 10/15/2013 7:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Oct 2013, at 12:45, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: On the contrary: I assume only that my brain (or generalized brain) is computable, then I show that basically all the rest is not. In everything, or just in arithmetic, the computable is rare a

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 10/15/2013 3:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/10/15 Richard Ruquist mailto:yann...@gmail.com>> Bruno: On the contrary: I assume only that my brain (or generalized brain) is computable, then I show that basically all the rest is not. In everything, or just in arithmetic, the co

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

at 10:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 15 Oct 2013, at 13:21, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > 2013/10/15 Richard Ruquist > >> >> >> -- Forwarded message -- >> From: Quentin Anciaux >> Date: Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 6:54 AM

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 15 Oct 2013, at 13:21, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/10/15 Richard Ruquist -- Forwarded message -- From: Quentin Anciaux Date: Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 6:54 AM Subject: Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 15 Oct 2013, at 12:45, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: On the contrary: I assume only that my brain (or generalized brain) is computable, then I show that basically all the rest is not. In everything, or just in arithmetic, the computable is rare and exceptional. Richard: Wow. This cont

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

2013/10/15 Richard Ruquist > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Quentin Anciaux > Date: Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 6:54 AM > Subject: Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > > > > > >

Fwd: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

-- Forwarded message -- From: Quentin Anciaux Date: Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 6:54 AM Subject: Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 2013/10/15 Richard Ruquist > Bruno: On the contrary: I assume only that my brain

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

2013/10/15 Richard Ruquist > Bruno: On the contrary: I assume only that my brain (or generalized > brain) is computable, then I show that basically all the rest is not. In > everything, or just in arithmetic, the computable is rare and exceptional. > > Richard: Wow. This contradicts everything I

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

Bruno: On the contrary: I assume only that my brain (or generalized brain) is computable, then I show that basically all the rest is not. In everything, or just in arithmetic, the computable is rare and exceptional. Richard: Wow. This contradicts everything I have ever though Bruno was claiming. H

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 14 Oct 2013, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote: On 10/14/2013 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Oct 2013, at 22:11, meekerdb wrote: On 10/13/2013 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Oct 2013, at 22:53, meekerdb wrote: On 10/12/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Oct 2013, at 03:25,

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 2:30 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/14/2013 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 13 Oct 2013, at 22:11, meekerdb wrote: > > On 10/13/2013 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 12 Oct 2013, at 22:53, meekerdb wrote: > > On 10/12/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 10/14/2013 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Oct 2013, at 22:11, meekerdb wrote: On 10/13/2013 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Oct 2013, at 22:53, meekerdb wrote: On 10/12/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Oct 2013, at 03:25, meekerdb wrote: So there are infinitely many

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 13 Oct 2013, at 22:11, meekerdb wrote: On 10/13/2013 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Oct 2013, at 22:53, meekerdb wrote: On 10/12/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Oct 2013, at 03:25, meekerdb wrote: So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a measuremen

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 10/13/2013 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Oct 2013, at 22:53, meekerdb wrote: On 10/12/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Oct 2013, at 03:25, meekerdb wrote: So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a measurement. How are these universes distinct from one a

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 12 Oct 2013, at 22:53, meekerdb wrote: On 10/12/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Oct 2013, at 03:25, meekerdb wrote: So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a measurement. How are these universes distinct from one another? Do they divide into two infinit

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 10/12/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Oct 2013, at 03:25, meekerdb wrote: So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a measurement. How are these universes distinct from one another? Do they divide into two infinite subsets on a binary measurement, or do infini

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

equation. The appearance of probability arises, as in Bruno's comp, from multiplication of the observer in those infinite branches. Why is this problematic? On Saturday, October 5, 2013 2:27:18 AM UTC+10, yanniru wrote: Foad Dizadji-Bahmani, 2013. The probability problem in Everettia

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 12 Oct 2013, at 05:15, meekerdb wrote: On 10/11/2013 7:52 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 05:46:57PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 10/11/2013 4:36 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:08:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: Maybe I'm not clear on what UD* means.

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 12 Oct 2013, at 04:52, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 05:46:57PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 10/11/2013 4:36 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:08:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: Maybe I'm not clear on what UD* means. I took it to be, at a given state of th

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 12 Oct 2013, at 01:36, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:08:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: Maybe I'm not clear on what UD* means. I took it to be, at a given state of the UD, the last bit output by the 1st prog, the last bit output by the 2nd program,...up to the last prog t

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 12 Oct 2013, at 01:16, meekerdb wrote: On 10/11/2013 4:05 PM, Pierz wrote: It does seem that the measure problem is an open one for comp, as far as I can tell from Bruno's responses, but he seems confident it's not insurmountable. Bruno's so confident that he argues that there mus

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 12 Oct 2013, at 01:08, meekerdb wrote: On 10/11/2013 3:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 03:08:30PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: UD* (trace of the universal dovetailer) is a continuum, AFAICT. It has the cardinality of the reals, and a natural metric (d(x,y) = 2^{- n}, whe

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 12 Oct 2013, at 01:05, Pierz wrote: On Saturday, October 12, 2013 5:42:06 AM UTC+11, Brent wrote: On 10/11/2013 4:16 AM, Pierz wrote: And just to follow up on that, there are still an infinite number of irrational numbers between 0 and 0.1. But not as large an infinity as those bet

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 12 Oct 2013, at 01:04, LizR wrote: On 12 October 2013 11:35, Russell Standish wrote: The UD doesn't output anything. If it did, then certainly, the output could not be an uncountable set due to the diagonalisation argument. Yes, I wasn't speaking very precisely. Obviously there is no out

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 12 Oct 2013, at 00:35, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 11:14:32AM +1300, LizR wrote: On 12 October 2013 11:12, LizR wrote: On 12 October 2013 10:46, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:07:58AM -0700, meekerdb wrote: I don't think being uncountable make

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 12 Oct 2013, at 00:14, LizR wrote: On 12 October 2013 11:12, LizR wrote: On 12 October 2013 10:46, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:07:58AM -0700, meekerdb wrote: > I don't think being uncountable makes it any easier unless they form > a continuum, which I don't think

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 12 Oct 2013, at 00:12, LizR wrote: On 12 October 2013 10:46, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:07:58AM -0700, meekerdb wrote: > I don't think being uncountable makes it any easier unless they form > a continuum, which I don't think they do. I QM an underlying > continuum

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 11 Oct 2013, at 23:46, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:07:58AM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 10/11/2013 2:28 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 06:25:45PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a measurement. How

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 11 Oct 2013, at 20:42, meekerdb wrote: On 10/11/2013 4:16 AM, Pierz wrote: And just to follow up on that, there are still an infinite number of irrational numbers between 0 and 0.1. But not as large an infinity as those between 0.1 and 1. No, the two are exactly the same uncoun

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 11 Oct 2013, at 19:07, meekerdb wrote: On 10/11/2013 2:28 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 06:25:45PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a measurement. How are these universes distinct from one another? Do they divide into

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 11 Oct 2013, at 17:00, Jason Resch wrote: On Oct 11, 2013, at 9:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Oct 2013, at 13:16, Pierz wrote: And just to follow up on that, there are still an infinite number of irrational numbers between 0 and 0.1. But not as large an infinity as those b

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 10/11/2013 7:52 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 05:46:57PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 10/11/2013 4:36 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:08:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: Maybe I'm not clear on what UD* means. I took it to be, at a given state of the UD,

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 05:46:57PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/11/2013 4:36 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > >On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:08:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: > >>Maybe I'm not clear on what UD* means. I took it to be, at a given > >>state of the UD, the last bit output by the 1st prog, t

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 10/11/2013 4:36 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:08:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: Maybe I'm not clear on what UD* means. I took it to be, at a given state of the UD, the last bit output by the 1st prog, the last bit output by the 2nd program,...up to the last prog that th

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 10/11/2013 4:45 PM, Pierz wrote: On Saturday, October 12, 2013 10:08:05 AM UTC+11, Brent wrote: On 10/11/2013 3:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 03:08:30PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: UD* (trace of the universal dovetailer) is a continuum, AFAICT. It has t

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 12 October 2013 12:06, Pierz wrote: > Haha. The flattery may be undone by learning that your view of quantum > probability is also endorsed by Olivia Newton-John's nephew! :) > OMG!!! :D :D :D It's electrifying! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On Saturday, October 12, 2013 10:08:05 AM UTC+11, Brent wrote: > > On 10/11/2013 3:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 03:08:30PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: > > UD* (trace of the universal dovetailer) is a continuum, AFAICT. It has > the cardinality of the reals, and a natu

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On Saturday, October 12, 2013 9:07:57 AM UTC+11, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:09:20AM -0700, Pierz wrote: > > > The former. Deutsch goes into the problem of infinite countable sets > in > > great detail and shows how this is *not* a problem for these uncountable > >

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:08:05PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: > > Maybe I'm not clear on what UD* means. I took it to be, at a given > state of the UD, the last bit output by the 1st prog, the last bit > output by the 2nd program,...up to the last prog that the UD has > started. Right? > Its not t

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 10/11/2013 4:05 PM, Pierz wrote: It does seem that the measure problem is an open one for comp, as far as I can tell from Bruno's responses, but he seems confident it's not insurmountable. Bruno's so confident that he argues that there must be a measure (because he's assumed comp is true an

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 10/11/2013 3:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 03:08:30PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: UD* (trace of the universal dovetailer) is a continuum, AFAICT. It has the cardinality of the reals, and a natural metric (d(x,y) = 2^{-n}, where n is the number of leading bits in common bet

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

Haha. The flattery may be undone by learning that your view of quantum probability is also endorsed by Olivia Newton-John's nephew! :) On Saturday, October 12, 2013 8:26:23 AM UTC+11, Liz R wrote: > > I know I shouldn't be flattered to hear that Max Born's great grandson > endorses my view of qu

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On Saturday, October 12, 2013 5:42:06 AM UTC+11, Brent wrote: > > On 10/11/2013 4:16 AM, Pierz wrote: > > And just to follow up on that, there are still an infinite number of > irrational numbers between 0 and 0.1. But not as large an infinity as > those between 0.1 and 1. > > > No,

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 12 October 2013 11:35, Russell Standish wrote: > The UD doesn't output anything. If it did, then certainly, the output > could not be an uncountable set due to the diagonalisation argument. > Yes, I wasn't speaking very precisely. Obviously there is no output, because where would it go? I mea

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 03:08:30PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: > >UD* (trace of the universal dovetailer) is a continuum, AFAICT. It has > >the cardinality of the reals, and a natural metric (d(x,y) = 2^{-n}, where n > >is > >the number of leading bits in common between x and y). > > Hmm? So 1000 is t

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 11:14:32AM +1300, LizR wrote: > On 12 October 2013 11:12, LizR wrote: > > > On 12 October 2013 10:46, Russell Standish wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:07:58AM -0700, meekerdb wrote: > >> > I don't think being uncountable makes it any easier unless they form > >

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 12 October 2013 11:12, LizR wrote: > On 12 October 2013 10:46, Russell Standish wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:07:58AM -0700, meekerdb wrote: >> > I don't think being uncountable makes it any easier unless they form >> > a continuum, which I don't think they do. I QM an underlying >>

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 12 October 2013 10:46, Russell Standish wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:07:58AM -0700, meekerdb wrote: > > I don't think being uncountable makes it any easier unless they form > > a continuum, which I don't think they do. I QM an underlying > > continuum (spacetime) is assumed, but not in

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 10/11/2013 2:46 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:07:58AM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 10/11/2013 2:28 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 06:25:45PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a measurement. How are t

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:09:20AM -0700, Pierz wrote: > > The former. Deutsch goes into the problem of infinite countable sets in > great detail and shows how this is *not* a problem for these uncountable > infinities (as Russell points out)), whereas it may be a problem for Interesting. I was

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:07:58AM -0700, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/11/2013 2:28 AM, Russell Standish wrote: > >On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 06:25:45PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: > >>So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a > >>measurement. How are these universes distinct from one anothe

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

I know I shouldn't be flattered to hear that Max Born's great grandson endorses my view of quantum probability, but. :D :D :D On 12 October 2013 00:11, Pierz wrote: > That is pretty much exactly my understanding. It does puzzle me that this > argument about the supposed probability pr

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 10/11/2013 4:16 AM, Pierz wrote: And just to follow up on that, there are still an infinite number of irrational numbers between 0 and 0.1. But not as large an infinity as those between 0.1 and 1. No, the two are exactly the same uncountable infinity, because there is a 1-to-1 mappin

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 10/11/2013 4:09 AM, Pierz wrote: On Friday, October 11, 2013 12:25:45 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a measurement. How are these universes distinct from one another? They aren't 'distinct'. The hypothesis is that every universe

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 10/11/2013 2:28 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 06:25:45PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a measurement. How are these universes distinct from one another? Do they divide into two infinite subsets on a binary measurement,

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On Oct 11, 2013, at 9:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Oct 2013, at 13:16, Pierz wrote: And just to follow up on that, there are still an infinite number of irrational numbers between 0 and 0.1. But not as large an infinity as those between 0.1 and 1. It is the same cardinal

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 11 Oct 2013, at 13:16, Pierz wrote: And just to follow up on that, there are still an infinite number of irrational numbers between 0 and 0.1. But not as large an infinity as those between 0.1 and 1. It is the same cardinal (2^aleph_zero). But cardinality is not what count whe

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

>> appearance of probability arises, as in Bruno's comp, from multiplication >> of the observer in those infinite branches. Why is this problematic? >> >> On Saturday, October 5, 2013 2:27:18 AM UTC+10, yanniru wrote: >>> >>> Foad Dizadji-Bahmani, 2013

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

t; and has proffered various arguments against it. However, third, I argue >> that Wallace’s arguments against BC are unpersuasive. I conclude that the >> probability problem in EQM persists. >> >> http://www.foaddb.com/FDBCV.**pdf <http://www.foaddb.com/FDBCV.pdf> >

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

universes. When a quantum event occurs, that set of infinite universes divides proportionally according to Schroedinger's equation. The appearance of probability arises, as in Bruno's comp, from multiplication of the observer in those infinite branches. Why is this problematic? On Sat

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

And just to follow up on that, there are still an infinite number of irrational numbers between 0 and 0.1. But not as large an infinity as those between 0.1 and 1. So extrapolating to universes, the very low probability, white rabbit universes also occur an infinite number of times, but

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

That is pretty much exactly my understanding. It does puzzle me that this argument about the supposed probability problem with MWI is still live, when that explanation seems perfectly coherent. On Friday, October 11, 2013 10:04:40 PM UTC+11, Liz R wrote: > > If you subdivide a continuum, I assum

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

gt; fungible universes. When a quantum event occurs, that set of infinite > universes divides proportionally according to Schroedinger's equation. The > appearance of probability arises, as in Bruno's comp, from multiplication > of the observer in those infinite branches. Why is this

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

If you subdivide a continuum, I assume you can do so in a way that gives the required probabilities. For example if the part of the multiverse that is involved in performing a quantum measurement with a 50-50 chance of either outcome is represented by the numbers 0 to 1, you can divide those into 0

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 06:25:45PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: > So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a > measurement. How are these universes distinct from one another? > Do they divide into two infinite subsets on a binary measurement, or > do infinitely many come into existence

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

the probability problem in EQM persists. http://www.foaddb.com/FDBCV.pdf <http://www.foaddb.com/FDBCV.pdf> Publications (a Ph.D. in Philosophy, London School of Economics, May 2012) ‘The Probability Problem in Everettian Quantum Mechanics Persists’, British Journal for Philos

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

#x27;s equation. The appearance of probability arises, as in Bruno's comp, from multiplication of the observer in those infinite branches. Why is this problematic? On Saturday, October 5, 2013 2:27:18 AM UTC+10, yanniru wrote: > > Foad Dizadji-Bahmani, 2013. The probability problem in Eve

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

ve argument for probability is valid for results as 'statistical' values. JM On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Foad Dizadji-Bahmani, 2013. The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics persists. British Jour. Philosophy of Science IN PRESS. ABS

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

bit further away and the COUNT of the studied item (= statistical value) will change. Also the above argument for probability is valid for results as 'statistical' values. JM On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: > Foad Dizadji-Bahmani, 2013. The probability problem

The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

Foad Dizadji-Bahmani, 2013. The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics persists. British Jour. Philosophy of Science IN PRESS. ABSTRACT. Everettian quantum mechanics (EQM) results in ‘multiple, emergent, branching quasi-classical realities’ (Wallace [2012]). The possible outcomes