On 03 Apr 2014, at 01:16, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 3:40:18 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Mar 2014, at 20:14, meekerdb wrote:
> On 3/31/2014 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> On 31 Mar 2014, at 19:04, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically
>>>>> observed fact actually not be.
>>>>>
>>>>> But would even that alone have been remotely near the ballpark
>>>>> of things taken seriously, had there not been extreme quantum
>>>>> strangeness irreconcilable at that time, with the most core,
>>>>> most fundamental accomplishments of science to date?
>>>>
>>>> MWI evacuates all weirdness from QM. It restores fully
>>>> - determinacy
>>>> - locality
>>>> - physical realism
>>>>
>>>> The price is not that big, as nature is used to multiplied
>>>> things, like the water molecules in the ocean, the stars in the
>>>> sky, the galaxies, etc.
>>>> Each time, the humans are shocked by this, and Gordiano Bruno get
>>>> burned for saying that stars are other suns, and that they might
>>>> have planets, with other living being.
>>>> It is humbling, but not coneptually new, especially for a
>>>> computationalist, which explains the MW from simple arithmetic,
>>>> where you need only to believe in the consequence of addition and
>>>> multiplication of integers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The price is not having a unified 'self' - which many people would
>>> consider a big price since all observation and record keeping
>>> which is used to empirically test theories assumes this unity.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> If you observe X and you want to use that as empircal test of a
>>> theory it isn't helpful if your theory of the instruments says
>>> they also recorded not-X.
>>
>> It is helpful when it is part of the only theories which are
>> working, like QM, or arithmetic.
>
> No it's not. It's reason the Born rule is needed and the source of
> the difficulty of interpreting probability in MWI and the 'white
> rabbit problem' in comp.
In my opinion, Gleason theorem solves this problem for the case of QM.
And if the Zs logic verifies some quite plausible conjecture, the case
of comp is reduced to the case of QM.
This is a technical point, 'course.
But even if such solutions did not exist, the MWI remains
understandable, which is not the case for QM+collapse.
Is this how Science works Bruno?
?
I just said that a theory can make sense, and another theory does not.
QM+collapse is contradictory, or it introduces new axioms, and they
can all be summed into some arbitrary dualist cut between macro and
micro, or subject and object, etc.
That a theory is good even when it fails tests deriving from other
scientific and/or mathematical domains, or sub-components thereof,
regarded at the high end of reliability, based on the accumulation
of different, mutually independent, tests devised and passed?
?
But QM, by which I always mean QM-without-collapse, is the theory
which has been tested the most, and I think that it is the only theory
who lived without being refuted for more than 10 years, except perhaps
for thermodynamic.
If that isn't a falsifiable event, then what is?
But QM has not (yet) been falsified.
Are you saying, the only event that really matters, is what is the
best explanation currently available? That is totally contradicted,
by the entirety of scientific history in terms of what actually
happens you realize?
"actually" happens?
You can't bet that a theoiry is false because it is the best
explanation. Nobody pretend that QM is true, but it works very well,
and with comp there is some hope to justify it from a deeper principle
(computationalism).
So in that case....are you saying - like Popper, like Deutsch - the
fact of that is all wrong or irrelevant and nothing to do with Real
Science, which is all about throwing explanations regardless of
quality everywhere a gap is spotted, if there's more than one,
performing some amazingly rational and dispassionate fireplace
discussion wearing crushed velvet jackets and smoking pipes, the way
the best friends do the Friday evening the Time Traveller vanishes
into time, and the Friday after he shoes up covered in lipsticky
lovebites clutching a dodgy flower.
I am not an expert in philosophy of science. My point was only that QM
and MWI are the same theory.
Is that how you're defining science? Because you do seem to be
neglecting falsification - any practical possibility of it.
I don't understand this remark at all. I am just saying that QM is
equivalent with MWI (the quantum "many", and perhaps even the comp
"many"), and QM seems working pretty well, and then it confirms the
comp MW prediction (and others one). The collapse is a metaphysical
assumption unsupported by zero evidences, and contradicting QM. It
seems to me.
If you can give me one reference on an experimental confirmation of
the collapse, give me a link.
I did believe Bohr in his defense of the collapse, due to a
perturbation, but after reading EPR, I realize that it just don't make
sense at all. Even Bohr, in his reply to EPR, admit that the
"perturbation" cannot be physical or mechanical, but what is it? He
added only pseudo-philosophical hand-waving to dismiss, unfairly,
Einstein, like he will later dismiss Everett and even refuse to meet
him.
Bruno
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
