On 03 Apr 2014, at 05:12, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote:
The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz?
I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was
alarmingly apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were
mitigated by the fact other interpretations had similar flaws; as
if the fact someone else is ill would make you less ill yourself. I
think in the world of QM interpretations, with bugger all evidence
to decide between them, the game is to even out the playing field
in terms of flaws and then chase parsimony. Ofcourse, whether an
infinite set of worlds is more or less parsimonious than just one
+ a few hidden variables, or one + a spooky wave function
collapse, depends very much on what definition of parsimonious you
find most fitting.
MWI is refuted by the massive totally unexamined - some unrealized
to this day - assumptions built in at the start.
?
MWI seems to me to be the literal understanding of QM (without
collapse).
It is also a simple consequence of computationalism, except we get a
multi-dreams and the question remains open if this defines a
universe, a multiverse, or a multi-multiverses, etc. (results points
toward a multiverse though).
It's like, local realism - a reasonable assumed universal.
Local realism is not part of QM assumption. It is a direct
consequence of the linearity of the Schroedinger Equation, and the
linearity of the tensor products.
But only the bare bones. Assuming locarealism means locality as we
perceive,
As we infer from what we perceive. We cannot *perceive" locality by
itself.
and classically seems to be. In; these dimensions. But what happens
when science transforms through a major generalization? The
hallmark is that not only theories get merged, broken up, such that
everything looks different. But that the revolution stretchs right
out to the conceptual framework itself...the basic concepts that
are upfront necessary to be shared, for basic communication to take
place. It's all concepts broken apart, while others merged
together. We can put some faith in local realism, but in what
dimensionality it's pure, we don't about that yet..we don't
know.MWI assumes that it's a safe scientific known. It isn't. In
fact everything is against that.
Personally, even without comp and without QM, "everything" is
conceptually more simpler than any one-thing approach, which always
needs much more particular assumptions.
There literally dozens of others. Like assuming major properties
are duplicated "as is" between higher and lower macrostate layers.
MWI'ers need to assume local realism at quantum levels as is.
Unprecedented if true. Daft in other words.
Is it not more simple to assume the same realism at all scale, that
to bet on different one?
When I throw this at them, the response if there is one is usually6
denial that MWI needs those massive assumptions and would not have
happened without them. Arguments come the lines of MWI is derived
clean from the wave function or by some other theoretical
strtucture, involving simple assumptions only none of them things
like local realism.
I agree, except that local realism is, as I said above, a
consequence of the SWE.
They just don't get it, science, anymore. theories as internal
theory structure get improved all the time as part of an ongoing
progression. Building out an assumption is not a matter of
improving theory structure alone.
MWI is tied to assuming local realism for all time, because it was
only the extreme and disturbing - incomprehensible even to the
greats - character of quantum strangenessl. MWI is tied to it,
because that is what it took hat an outrageous, unscientific
notion like MWI could be taken seriously at all.
Frankly, I believe the exact contrary. MWI is what you get from
assuming the axioms of quantum mechanics, and that is the unitary
evolution.
MWI even now, has not defense for itself, without reference to
quantum strangeness,, and restorations to classical determinism.
Which I think would be enough to make it most plausible than any
other (sur)-interpretation. But MWI, which is just the SWE "seen
from inside", restore not classical determinism, but also, well,
local locality and well local realism.
It's a quantum theory, and it's wrong, because it's assumptions are
that the nature of reality is hard tied forever to principles,
That's QM. That tomorrow we might discover that QM is false is just
science. But if comp and/or QM is correct, the many-thing will
remain with us, indeed.
hard tied to the complexities of this dimension, this universe
right here. What a joke. The harm done by this theory is
immeasurable. A theory sterile for all time, placed all around the
boundaries beyond the frontiers of science, that can never be
discoverex, never be passed through, never be built over, or under.
It's an act of murder of the human and scientific dreamss
Hmm...
I don't want to defend the truth of QM, or the truth of comp, or the
truth of the MW. But I do believe that QM, or just comp, implies the
Many World.
Now, let us be careful. Computationalism implies that we don't need
to assume more than the natural numbers and their + and * laws. So,
strictly speaking, it is a 0-world theory, or a 0-physical-world
theory. With comp, worlds "made-of-matter" are only a first person
plural view, but then that inside view is, from inside arithmetic,
structured as a multiverse. So no universe at all is "real", but our
"physical universe" is not more real than the "parallel universe".
It is reassuring for me that you seem to have the same difficulties
with Everett than with comp's consequence. That is at least coherent.
Bruno - I'll answer your whole post before long, but happened to
notice this concluding remark, which manages to a serious point,
while a tickler in the belly region at the same time. Found myself
giggling somewhat anyway, without that detracting from the sense you
a point that has also not been lost on me, and has also been
reassuring to me.
So with all brevity aside old boy. It's right back at you. Except
your problem is not coherence. It's that you have lost the capacity
to dream or imagine yourself, not just not into my shoes to see what
I mean, in terms of what's going on that my thoughts might have a
coherence, but anyone's - that's my charge back to you. Anyone's
except from inside your box of objects like comp, not-com. Exactly
your definitions, exactly as you see the arising historically, all
of it 'sright in your mind to the extend the very notion of
something being amiss in the intrinsic underbelly of those
definitions, whether in terms of how they came to be, in terms of
how they might have been slightly different, or a lot different, in
terms of what the other possibilities that were actually available
and identified were, in terms of what sort of rigour - what standard
- thse identification efforts were, in terms of what sortof threads
were running through things then, in terms of assumptions, in terms
of whether any continue to run through things now, in terms of what
if any impacts or risks are possible at what level of probability.
Perhaps, but if you can't be more specific, I cannot add much.
Endless Bruno, endless scope for bad, or big, or influential,
unrealized totally fuck you upping eventually all defining, all your
hard work up the backpassage internals destroying.
You are losing me again. I don't understand.
Endless possible. That you endlessly fail to see, even in the mos
minimal sense of getting some coherent notion what it is I've been
repeatedly trying all manner of ways to make you see.
It might means that you should try to make your point clearer. I
sincerely fail to see it. When you say that the collapse has been
confirmed, I can clearly disagree, but here, I just don't understand
the point.
But hey, that all off my chest, I'm back to good again.
Good.
You remind me Churchill, who saw the ultimate mathematical truth, but
it was after dinner, so he let it go :)
Blue eyes shining like before. Ready to keep talking, and keep
trying. I think, or maybe this is the, that's it folks, from me. It
has to come eventually I guess....death brings it if nothing else
first. By the way, in context of my eventual death, I sure hope you
were right Bruno, you above all the others too. The world that you
see.
Not that I see, but deduce from simple principles, which might be
refuted. I have no certainty, and more, I don't believe in any
certainty in science, nor elsewhere, except for the 1p consciousness
here-and-now.
Science is born from the doubt, and it never evacuates it, on the
contrary, it only makes the doubt greater. Comp + some definition of
science can explain why it has to be like that. Truth is like an
infinite cave, and all the light (theories) we can put on it
eventually shows that the cave is bigger than we thought, and that
what we see are only shadows of shadows of the unknown.
Sure, it is diabolical and terrifying in all those ways,
Comp has some very nice aspects, but some quite frightful aspects to.
But life too. It is wonderful and frightening, marvelous and sometimes
horrible. Humanity too.
but then it is beautiful and astonishing and liberating and freeing
in all those other ways, and how it's indescribable, undefinable,
completely unimaginable - those other ways - and yet....there it is
clear as day.
Nice!
Like the girl that's just so very, so awfully, painfully, pretty. As
I am quite sure so too are you, your way. Peace.
Peace, ghibbsa, and please don't despair teaching me, if you feel I
miss something.
Bruno
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.
