All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)
Le jeu. 3 juil. 2025, 18:20, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > On Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 10:11:33 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > AG, > > This is a common misunderstanding. Everett’s formulation doesn’t claim > that worlds are created when measurements happen. All possible outcomes are > already contained in the universal wavefunction, which evolves unitarily > without adding energy. > > The “splitting worlds” language is just a heuristic. As DeWitt clarified: > > > “The universe does not actually split. The wavefunction evolves into > non-interacting branches.” > > > * That doesn't seem to match what Carroll claims. * > I do think. you as often misunderstand and don't want to acknowledge your mistakes. *Further, if these worlds exist before I make a turn at a traffic light, > did the universe "know" beforehand, that I would make that turn? AG* > You made them all... nothing to know in advance. > > No energy is created—unitary evolution conserves it. So your description > doesn’t match what Everett proposed. > > Quentin > > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy > Batty/Rutger Hauer) > Le jeu. 3 juil. 2025, 18:04, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > On Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 9:25:43 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Just see it like this, there are always an infinite number of worlds, they > differentiate when you measure something, nothing comes into existence, > everything is already there. > > > *This isn't the Everett model, or what some "experts" claim IS the Everett > model. AG * > > > Le jeu. 3 juil. 2025, 15:38, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > On Sunday, June 29, 2025 at 1:43:54 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote: > > *There are three different inequalities that are relevant to many worlds. > The Bell Inequality discovered in 1964. The Leggett-Garg Inequality > discovered in 1985. And the Leggett Inequality discovered in 2003. Quantum > Mechanics says all 3 inequalities must be false and experimenters have also > found that they are all false, and that tells us something profound about > the nature of the world. * > > *The violation of Bell's Inequality tells us that local realism is false, > that is to say either instantaneous action at a distance is possible, or > things that have not been measured do NOT exist in one and only one > definite state, or things are both non-local and non-realistic. * > > *The fact that experimenters have found that that the 1983 Leggett-Garg > Inequality is also violated places further constraints on how the universe > must operate. Bell tests for the interconnectedness of two different > systems across space, but Leggett-Garg tests reveal the interconnectedness > of the same system across time. So for Legget-Garg the truth or falsehood > of locality, a.k.a. "spooky action at a distance", is irrelevant. The > Leggett-Garg Inequality is false, so at least one, and possibly both, of > the following statements must be wrong:* > > *1) A macroscopic system always possesses one and only one definite unique > state regardless of if it has been measured or not.* > > *2) Non-Invasive Measurement is not possible, that is to say a system's > state can NOT be probed without disturbing the future evolution of that > state. Sometimes this is also referred to as the Clumsiness Axiom.* > *Those who wish to preserve the idea that there is only one reality, at > least for large macroscopic objects, pinned their hopes on the clumsiness > axiom being true, they also said because of the Clumsiness Axiom large > quantum computers would never be possible because quantum error correction > algorithms are not possible. But it turned out that quantum error > correction IS possible because the concept of weak measurement was > discovered, it's possible to extract a small amount of useful information > from a quantum system without destroying all its remaining encoded > information. Weak Measurement was used to show that Leggett-Garg > Inequality was violated, the fact that weak measurement was used > successfully in quantum error correction makes it reasonable to think it > could also be used to show that Leggett-Garg is violated.* > > *The Leggett Inequality should not be confused with > the Leggett-Garg Inequality, Leggett was involved in both but they test for > different things, and experimenters have found that both are violated, as > was Bell's Inequality. To summarize: * > > *Bell's Inequality violation tells us we have to give up either locality > and allow instantaneous action at a distance, or give up on reality, the > idea that things exist in one and only one definite state even if they have > not been measured. Given the fact that experimenters have never found > anything that moves faster than the speed of light, much less anything that > is instantaneous, most physicists think it makes more sense to keep > locality but get rid of reality. * > > *Leggett-Garg Inequality violation tells us quantum weirdness is not just > limited to sub microscopic particles, it applies to microscopic objects > too.* > > *Leggett Inequality violation tells us that even if you allow for > non-locality (you allow instantaneous communication) you STILL can't have > realism, not unless you embrace either Objective Collapse Theory, in which > you'd have to give up determinism, or Superdeterminism, in which you'd have > to give up Occam's Razor and even the scientific method. I like Many Worlds > better than Objective Collapse because I'd rather not give up determinism > unless there is a compelling reason to do so, and so far at least there > isn't one. As for Superdeterminism, there are an astronomical number, and > possibly an infinite number, of ways the Big Bang could've started out in, > but just one of them produces a universe in which superdeterminism is true, > and that's just too silly to be taken seriously. * > > *If experimenters had found that even one of those three inequalities, > which were developed decades after Hugh Everett came up with his idea, then > Many Worlds would've been proven to be wrong, but instead it passed all > three tests with flying colors. So much for those who say Many Worlds is > not scientific because it is not falsifiable. * > > *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* > > > *FYI, other than one exception, I generally respect physicists, even those > that affirm there might be multiple worlds. The exception is for those like > Sean Carroll who affirm an Everett-type model of many worlds, such as > worlds coming into existence whenever someone or something makes a turn at > some intersection. **Such a proposed model indicates, to me at least, a > serious lack of judgement by its advocates. Never can they explain where > the energy comes from its creation. **I am aware I'm not supposed to > consider reasonableness in models of physical reality. I firmly reject that > pov in the case of Everett-type models as I understand them. AG* > > -- > 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 > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4a78b6a2-ede7-4278-bc5f-ba526f18258bn%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4a78b6a2-ede7-4278-bc5f-ba526f18258bn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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 email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAp2w3bPRPjpXpw8adWxoR6up3zDHPGnkArTLDSC-1vswQ%40mail.gmail.com.
