On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 3:27:41 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 7:28 AM Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > t*hat classical probability for a winning ticket is determined by some >> quantum superposition of states that give a probability for a ticket to be >> printed with some set of numbers, or for some probability of tickets being >> distributed in some way.* >> > > The Schrodinger wave equation says the ticket is printed in every possible > way and the winning number is picked in every possible way, but that's not > all you yourself are also a quantum object so you interact with the ticket > in every possible way. Some interactions result in great wealth, some > result in no profit, and some result in oblivion as in the suicide scenario > . >
The Schödinger equation says nothing of the sort. It is not a Charlie Parker "anything goes" system. It just tells how probability amplitudes that define a state or wave in a Fourier sum evolves with time. With large scale systems there are massive levels of decoherence and ensuing entanglement shifts. It would be argued there are some MWI splittings that may play a role in determining the lottery number on the winning ticket, but there is no way this can at all be localized or identified. As for below the Wheeler Delayed Choice experiment in the MWI setting a measurement of whether the electron went through a slit is performed after it has passed. This would mean that a measurement at time T sets whether the electron was in a slit at time t < T. We can say the measurement is localized at time T, but in MWI we have to say the splitting of the world wave function began at t. This quantum suicide experiment might be argued to do something similar. If I choose to go through with it I then select a world path I observe at a time after the actual splitting happens. This leads to an ambiguity over where one defines the localization of states in a measurement. The advantage of MWI is that it is not local and this nonlocality may work well in quantum gravity. LC > > > >> * > In performing this quantum suicide experiment one is forcing the >> situation in something similar to a Wheeler delayed choice experiment.* >> > > I don't see the analogy at all. Regardless of if you perform the quantum > suicide experiment or not every possible lottery ticket was printed, and > you bought every possible lottery ticket, and every possible number was > picked as the winning number. The past is not changed but the future is > changed depending on if you performed the experiment, if you do then in the > future there is no universe in the multiverse where you're looking at a > losing ticket, if you don't do the experiment then there is; but the past > is the same in both cases. > > So the multiverse contains 2 very general types of "you", universes where > you decide to do the experiment and always end up looking at a winning > ticket (a universe for every possible winning number), and universes where > you decide not to do the experiment and always end up looking at numbers > most of which are losing numbers. But in either case I don't see why backward > causality is needed. > > > *with this suicide experiment there is a quantum outcome prior to the >> final experimental end that demolishes the appearance of superposition. How >> is that localized? * >> > > By just looking at the lottery ticket. Normally there would be far more > versions of you looking at a losing ticket than a winning one, but in the > suicide experiment there are not as many versions of you but all of them > are looking at a winning ticket. > > I can think of an interesting variation on the suicide experiment. I > decide to do it but I offer you a side bet and give you a thousand to one > odds that I have the winning ticket; if my ticket loses I will give you a > thousand dollars if I win you only have to give me one dollar. The logical > thing for both of us is to make the bet (if we make the big assumption that > Many Worlds is true), you calculate that there is only one chance in 80 > million of me winning so you know you are almost certain to win a thousand > dollars, and I calculate I will win an additional dollar with > absolute certainty to go with my vast lottery winnings. Yes in most > universes my estate will owe you a thousand dollars but I no longer exist > in them so I have no use for that money. It's a win win bet. > > John K Clark > > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/87b46035-9939-4e72-b042-43394f40fd61%40googlegroups.com.
