On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 9:38 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
*> 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.* > *So it all comes down to the personal incredulity of Alan Grayson. You don't even attempt to use logic or mathematics to refute anything I said, and you ignore the fact that the violation of the Bell, Leggett, and Leggett-Garg Inequality are all screaming that things do NOT exist in one and only one state before they have been measured; you maintain it just can't be true because if it was then things would just be too big, and in comparison you would be too small. It's interesting that personal incredulity was also the reason that for centuries most people didn't believe the stars were objects as bright as the sun and that they only looked dim because they were at enormous distances, because if it was true then things would be too big and they would be too small.* > *> Never can they explain where the energy comes from its creation. * > *I have explained that to you ON THIS VERY LIST a few months ago and as is your custom you did not dispute anything I said but instead you kept silent for a few days and then simply repeated that nobody can explain where the energy comes from. It's an interesting debate strategy, ask a question, ignore the answer, ask the exact same question again, and repeat until your opponent screams and loses his mind in frustration. * > *You seem to be positing a form of degenerate physics.* *Degenerate physics? Where have I heard that term before? Oh yes, in Germany during the 1930s whenever the subject of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, or Albert Einstein came up. * *> I am content to cease this communication. AG* *I note that it took exactly 68 minutes for this conversation to turn from Quinton's polite response to your "degenerate" invective, and I'd say that rate of descent is about typical for you. * *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* 4xk *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. * > -- 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/CAJPayv1E1pb0Dbf1DdDgPy8C4%2B8No8-FThhnu0qn6NMAC4aXKQ%40mail.gmail.com.
