On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Alan Grayson <agrayson2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Alan Grayson <agrayson2...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 08 Sep 2016, at 21:43, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 1:15:15 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 08 Sep 2016, at 18:22, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 7:53:23 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 07 Sep 2016, at 20:06, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 11:16:38 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 06 Sep 2016, at 17:42, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 4:38:53 AM UTC-6, >>>>>>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I understand your pov. It has but one problem. You ignore the >>>>>>>> elephant in the room; namely, those other worlds or universes >>>>>>>> necessary for >>>>>>>> the outcomes not measured in this world to be realized. But you have an >>>>>>>> out, stated in another post. They form part of your imagination. Not >>>>>>>> good >>>>>>>> enough from my pov. AG >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I should also add that the MWI sheds no light, AFAICT, on the >>>>>>> measurement problem; that is, why we get the outcome we get. As far as >>>>>>> collapse contradicting SR via the result of Bell experiments, I am not >>>>>>> sure >>>>>>> about that conclusion. If FTL occurs, it may be the case that in some >>>>>>> frames Alice's measurement occurs first, in other frames Bob's >>>>>>> measurement >>>>>>> occurs first. I tend to think this muddies the waters on the issue of >>>>>>> FLT >>>>>>> transmission and contradictions with relativity. AG >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The "MWI" explains already a part of the mind-body problem when >>>>>>> formulated in the Digital Mechanist Frame. You don't need to even know >>>>>>> QM >>>>>>> to understand the high plausibility of the "many-computations". >>>>>>> If FTL occurs, and you keep both QM and SR, then an action in the >>>>>>> future can change the past, and physical causility becomes meaningless. >>>>>>> With mechanism, physical causality is not yet guarantied, to be sure, >>>>>>> but I >>>>>>> would throw digital mechanism if it could lead to future -> past >>>>>>> physical >>>>>>> action (it does not make sense). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ah, you wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Possible correction: my remark about relativity might apply to how >>>>>>> events are seen from a frame moving FTL -- that is, a breakdown in >>>>>>> causality -- and might not apply to Alice/Bob situation. AG >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, OK, then. But it would apply if there were a collapse (in one >>>>>>> universe), even if Alice needs to send two bits of information to >>>>>>> transformed the effect (and send or get one qubit). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The "collapse" does not even refer to anything I can make sense of. >>>>>>> It looks like a continuous invocation of God. As an explanation, it >>>>>>> looks >>>>>>> like a continuum of blasphemes (in the theology of the universal >>>>>>> machine). >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Here's what collapse means to me; the wf evolves from a solution of >>>>>> SWE, namely a superposition, to a delta function centered at the >>>>>> measurement value. No one knows, or has a model how this transformation >>>>>> occurs.It's in the category of a TBD, possibly unknowable. It seems >>>>>> empirically based since repeated measurements of the same system result >>>>>> in >>>>>> the same outcomes. I don't necessarily believe in primary matter's >>>>>> existence. But its statistical persistence seems undeniable, whereas the >>>>>> many worlds has yet to manifest any persistence except in the minds of >>>>>> its >>>>>> advocates. AG >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The MWI is only the SWE taken literally. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Maybe that's the problem; taking a calculational tool too seriously. >>>>> AG* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> If an observer O observes a cat in the superposition d + a (dead + >>>>>> alive), >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *But that never happens. The state of superposition exists, if it >>>>> does, when the box is closed, and ceases when the box is opened. * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Then the SWE is wrong. >>>>> >>>>> You beg the question by postulating that QM is wrong outside the box, >>>>> but there are no evidence for that, given that Everett showed the >>>>> consistency of QM-without-collapse with the facts, using the simplest >>>>> known >>>>> antic theory of mind (mechanism) >>>>> >>>>> >>>> *The fact is the cat is dead OR alive when the box is opened, and >>>> presumably alive before the box is closed. So all I am doing is refuting >>>> your claim that any observer observes a superposition of states. AG * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In QM+collapse, which assumes that QM is wrong somewhere (but where? No >>>> unanimity of collapse-defenders agree on this). >>>> >>>> Without collapse, the cat is in the superposition state (dead+alive), >>>> and when an observer look at the cat, he entangles itself with the cat >>>> state, and the final state is O-a alive + O-d dead (linearity of tensor >>>> product). Then by linearity of the SWE, O-a lives a *phenomenological >>>> collapse" like if the cat was reduced to "alive", and O-b lives a >>>> phenomenological like if the cat was reduced to "dead", but in the 3p >>>> picture, no reduction ever occurred. >>>> >>>> >>>> Bruno >>>> >>> >>> Sorry, but what you write makes no sense. When you look at the cat, >>> presumably after box is opened, the cat is either alive or dead. You may be >>> entangled with it, but at that point in time there is no superposition of >>> alive and dead. AG >>> >>>> >>>> >> There is, but you are now part of the superposition. You have >> differentiated into two non-interacting brain states. One of which is part >> of the history: >> >> A) Atom decayed, Geiger Counter Detected it, Poison Release, Cat Died, >> You saw a dead cat, Your brain remembers seeing a dead cat >> B) Atom did not decay, Geiger Counter Never Detected Anything, Poison >> still contained, Cat still alive, You saw a live cat, Your brain remembers >> seeing a live cat >> > > *In the context of the MWI, an observer in this world see one of the > alternatives, say the first. So we can say the cat in this world has won > the lottery. Why must there be a cat in some other world -- a world that > comes into existence when the cat in this world has survived -- and lose > the lottery? Oh, the wf is a superposition and continues to evolve. But > look at the wf. It's a solution in terms of space and time. I see no Alive > or Dead state as a solution of the SWE. So your mentor, Bruno, speaks > foolishly despite his sophistication. I think it's called a category error. > AG * > > > The system remains in the superposition of (A+B). The super position of >> the atoms state has led to all the other superpositions regarding the cats >> state, and now your state, and can spread at up to the speed of light as >> the multi-state particles carry forward their interactions with the >> environment. >> > > *But the superposition of the radioactive states can NOT be interpreted to > mean the atoms are simultaneously in both states, Decayed and Undecayed. I > explained why recently. Hence, the cat, which can be imagined as sharing > that superposition of the radioactive states, is not simultaneously in both > Alive and Dead states. AG * > *To summarize; you have two fatal problems; you can't explain the emergence of the other world when an experiment is done in this world -- its infrastructure and energy, including its additional observer -- and you misinterpret the meaning of the wf for the radioactive states. AG* > >> Jason >> >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >> Google Groups "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/to >> pic/everything-list/SJdbZNPRALg/unsubscribe. >> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
