> On 7 Aug 2018, at 01:33, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > > On 8/5/2018 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 4 Aug 2018, at 23:32, agrayson2...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> AFAIK, no one has ever observed a probability wave, from which I conclude >>> the wave function has only epistemic content. >> >> >> Then you need to explain how that epistemic content interfere in nature. > ?? The epistemic content IS how interference occurs in nature. The wave > function is one's estimation/knowledge of how events will infold, including > intereference.
That will follow from mechanism indeed, but is not the standard way most people interpret the physical laws. The *physical* antic will indeed be epistemic, but that is what we need to test (and indeed the quantum confirms this, but you give the answer before the question). What I meant is that the quantum wave has to be taken as real, as we can put it in a box and send it to a colleague to ask if he get the same results. It is not like the subjective probabilities based on ignorance and big numbers like in statistical physics. > >> Your idea might make sense, and indeed if we believe in a collapse (as you >> have to do if you believe in QM and that the superposition does not apply to >> us) the idea that consciousness collapse the wave is perhaps the less >> ridiculous idea. That idea has indeed be defended by von Neumann, Wigner, >> and some others. But has been shown to lead to many difficulties when taken >> seriously by Abner Shimony, as well guessed by Wigner itself. Obviously that >> idea would be inconsistent with Mechanism. >> >> There is no probability waves. There is only an amplitude of probability >> wave, and the weirdness is that we have strong indirect evidence that the >> amplitude of that wave is as physically real as the particles that we can >> observe, because the particle location is determined by that wave having >> interfered like wave usually do. In particular, even if send one by one, the >> particles will never been found where the wave interfere destructively, and >> the pattern on the screen will reflect the number of holes, and their >> disposition. > > That's like arguing that the map is the territory because if you follow it > you get where you want to go. ? I don’t see that at all. It is more saying that the map is correct as it indicates where we can visit this and that, and indeed, all participant acknowledge that it is the case. Again I discuss physics here, not Mechanism. Bruno > > Brent > >> >> It is OK to say that probability comes from ignorance, and that the wave >> describe that ignorance, the extraordinary thing is then that this >> ignorance interfere independently of you. >> >> >> >> >> >>> So I have embraced the "shut up and calculate" interpretation of the wave >>> function. >> >> >> That can be wise. Nobody can enforce the search of the truth. It is >> frustrating because we can’t be sure if we progress toward it or the >> contrary, and it is shocking because truth always beat fictions. >> >> >> >>> I also see a connection between the True Believers of the MWI, and Trump >>> sycophants; they seem immune to simple facts, such as the foolishness of >>> thinking copies of observers can occur, or be created, willy-nilly. AG >> >> That remark deserves your point and diminish your credibility. It also >> suggests that you are a “True Believer” in something. >> >> Assuming Mechanism in cognitive science, you don’t need quantum mechanics to >> understand that there are infinitely many relative computational states >> corresponding to you here and now emulated by infinitely many universal >> machines. > > No, but you need to believe that abstractions like universal Turing machines > exist and are running a UD and that you and your whole world are just > computations. > > Brent > >> Even without mechanism this is a theorem of arithmetic using only Church >> thesis. With mechanism, we have to derive the “guessable wave" from a >> statistics on those computations, and so we can test Mechanism if it leads >> to more, or less extravaganza than Nature. It fits up to now. So with >> Mechanism, we get the *appearance* of many interfering “worlds”, and this >> without any worlds, from just the natural numbers and the laws of addition >> and multiplication. I will show that with the combinators as it is much >> shorter (but still long) than showing this with the numbers. This is known >> by logicians since the 1930s (I mean that a universal Turing machine is an >> arithmetical object). Computationalism, or Indexical Digital Mechanism >> imposes a Many-Dreams internal interpretation of Arithmetic (or combinator >> theory, or game-of-life theory, … we have to assume only one universal >> machinery). >> >> 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 >>> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. >>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com >>> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>. >>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list >>> <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >>> <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 >> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com >> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list >> <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >> <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 > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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.
