AG,
The key difference is this:
In superdeterminism, hidden variables set both the outcomes and the
measurement settings in a way that conspires to mimic quantum predictions.
In MWI, the settings and outcomes evolve deterministically, but all
possible combinations actually happen in different branches. No single
hidden-variable script forces the observed correlations.
So there’s no conspiracy to pick just one history, because none is
singled out.
That's fundamentally different.
Quentin
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)
Le sam. 5 juil. 2025, 20:46, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a
écrit :
On Saturday, July 5, 2025 at 11:57:05 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
AG,
Nobody claims we know the exact universal wavefunction in
practice. It’s just the statement that if quantum mechanics
applies universally, there is some wavefunction that evolves
deterministically.
That’s different from superdeterminism. Superdeterminism says
hidden variables conspire to fix outcomes and correlations.
MWI doesn’t assume any hidden variables or conspiracies.
*If everything evolves deterministically, then so are the settings
in Bell experiments. So it seems there's no difference between
super determinism and the belief that everything evolves
deterministically. AG*
It just says all possible outcomes happen in parallel
branches. No loophole is needed, because nothing forces only
one result to be real.
Quentin
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
(Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)
Le sam. 5 juil. 2025, 18:54, Alan Grayson
<[email protected]> a écrit :
On Saturday, July 5, 2025 at 10:32:23 AM UTC-6 Quentin
Anciaux wrote:
AG,
You can’t write the universal wavefunction in full
detail because it’s the total quantum state of the
entire universe.
In principle, it’s a giant superposition of all
possible configurations evolving deterministically.
Just because we can’t write it out explicitly doesn’t
mean it’s not part of the formalism. Even for a modest
number of entangled particles, the wavefunction is too
big to display, but it still has a precise
mathematical definition.
Quentin
If we have hugely limited knowlege of what the "entire
universe" is, how can you be sure that the UWF captures
the state of the universe. Seems like a huge stretch. You
called me a prick, but the determinism you assert for the
UWF seems virtually indistinguishable from super
determinism, but without direct reference to Bell
experiments and the loophole implied. AG
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in
rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)
Le sam. 5 juil. 2025, 18:09, Alan Grayson
<[email protected]> a écrit :
On Friday, July 4, 2025 at 6:52:05 AM UTC-6
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
AG,
That’s exactly the point: the universal
wavefunction contains all possible paths you
might take—left, right, or none.
It doesn’t “know” in advance which one you
will experience; it simply encodes every
alternative in superposition.
That’s why it’s called Many Worlds. Nothing is
singled out until decoherence makes the
branches effectively independent. There will
be as many AG as physically possible (means
possible according to the wavefunction)
Quentin
Can you write the Universal WF? Much is claimed
about it, but I've never seen it. AG
All those moments will be lost in time, like
tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)
Le ven. 4 juil. 2025, 14:09, Alan Grayson
<[email protected]> a écrit :
On Friday, July 4, 2025 at 5:48:06 AM
UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
AG,
In MWI, whether you call it
“splitting” or “differentiation”
doesn’t really change anything
essential. The universal wavefunction
by definition contains all possible
branches in superposition.
What we call “worlds” are just
components becoming effectively
independent via decoherence. Nothing
extra gets created, everything is
always in the wavefunction.
It’s the same formalism either way;
the difference is just in how you
choose to describe it.
Quentin
So the Universal WF contains information
concerning which turn I will make at an
intersection before I make the turn? Is
this your claim what the MWI contains? AG
All those moments will be lost in
time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)
Le ven. 4 juil. 2025, 12:52, Alan
Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit :
On Thursday, July 3, 2025 at
7:38:03 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 7/3/2025 2:51 PM, Alan
Grayson wrote:
I definitely understand the
mathematics and logic that
for light speed to be frame
invariant, length contraction
and time dilation must occur.
But I don't see any physical
model that allows that to
occur, and I don't think
Relativity provides that
model. AG
You seem to have a hang up
about "models". What exactly
are you asking for? A
mechanical model of springs
and masses like Faraday
contrived for EM waves?
Lorentz already derived his
contraction by considering
atoms as little particles held
in place by EM forces? Isn't
that "model" enough for you?
Brent
I'm not sure exactly what I am
seeking, but logic alone leaves
much to be desired in the context
of Relativity. Lorentz's model is
rarely, if ever, mentioned today
in any discussion of Relativity,
presumably because it's wrong, or
doesn't adequately provide an
explanation for length
contraction, or possibly because
logic is seen as sufficient to
explain relativistic phenomena
(when it does not IMO). As for
Quentin's explanation of how many
worlds come into being, he says
they don't, but are always there,
as if those I am supposed to think
come into being at some
intersection with its numerous
different turns possible, were
always implicit in the Universal
WF, which perfectly knows the
future? Quentin thinks this is a
reasonable interpretation of the
MWI, when IMO it's just untestable
imagination. What's your opinion
of this latest twist on the MWI,
which is supposed to appeal to
sober individuals? 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/cdefbd3e-1c2f-45af-ab63-ab460e0964b0n%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cdefbd3e-1c2f-45af-ab63-ab460e0964b0n%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/d258092a-1463-4d78-987d-430d76d92c58n%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d258092a-1463-4d78-987d-430d76d92c58n%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/114e367b-3153-44ac-b05b-adce7ec76ae7n%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/114e367b-3153-44ac-b05b-adce7ec76ae7n%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/CAMW2kAqVAzymuzWBZBfhufRXGprCVxYky1XmGesmX_Sk3%3DEfvw%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAqVAzymuzWBZBfhufRXGprCVxYky1XmGesmX_Sk3%3DEfvw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
