On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 09:41, Philip Thrift <cloudver...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 7:32:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 9/25/2019 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 24 Sep 2019, at 17:44, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 6:23:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 24 Sep 2019, at 10:22, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 3:05:39 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 1:36:42 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 8:44:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 9/23/2019 6:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:44:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/23/2019 11:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *But other quantum experts use decoherence to explain quantum >>>>>>> phenomena without invoking multiple universes.* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Without invoking" doesn't mean "denying". >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It does if you believe in applying Occam's Razor. AG >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> True. But I'm still waiting for pt to quote this expert saying he >>>>>> explains quantum phenomena without MW. He keeps implying it's Zurek, >>>>>> but I >>>>>> just read Zurek's paper on quantum Darwinism again and ISTM Zurek is >>>>>> assuming MWI throughout. QD is just his solution to the basis problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> Brent >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Zurek is not on a book tour, nor does he tweet, but after the rollout >>>>> of Carroll's book, one can only conclude: >>>>> >>>>> * Many Worlds is religion, not science.* >>>>> >>>>> @philipthrift >>>>> >>>> >>>> Right. You'll notice how my comment that the MWI is tantamount to >>>> "hubris on steroids" was never responded to. Hopefully, he'll be denied >>>> tenure, and his book and personage can go into the dustbin of history, >>>> where it belongs. AG >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I can't believe (well, I guess I can believe) the number of physicist >>> who think MWI is a valuable contribution to science. If you tell them >>> otherwise they they you that you don't understand physics. Many Worlds is >>> "in the math" (as Sean Carroll claims) so it must be true. >>> >>> They engage in magical thinking, but think they are doing science. >>> Amazing. >>> >>> >>> The many-histories is a logical consequence of the theory. To assume a >>> theory without accepting its consequence is just wrong, or irrational. >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Which specific theory formulation are you talking about? >> >> >> Any formulation without physical wave reduction. Everett’s one, for >> example. With our without the Born rules (the fact that they are derivable >> or not is not much relevant, as you know I do think that Gleason theorem >> makes them derivable, but that is not relevant here). >> >> >> >> >> There's *quantum measure theory*: >> >> Axioms in section 2: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.0589.pdf >> >> >> That is a very interesting paper. >> >> >> >> But I don't see where Many Worlds as Carroll presents them are >> necessarily implied by these axioms. >> >> >> They are implied by the SWE, or Dirac. May be the best argument is that >> the founder have invented the notion of collapse because that is the only >> way to avoid them. >> >> QM predict that I f I put cat in the state dead + alive, and if I look at >> the cat living/dead state, I will put myself in the state >> seeing-the-cat-dead + seeing the cat-alive, and without a wave reduction >> postulate, no branche of that superposition can be made more real or less >> real than the other. >> >> I don’t need quantum mechanics to bet on many-world: like Deutsch I >> consider that the two slit experiment is enough. >> >> >> I think the alternative is something suggested by Zurek. He shows that >> decoherence plus einselection will make the reduced density matrix strictly >> diagonal, i.e. he solves the preferred basis and derivation of the Born >> rule. Then he suggests, but doesn't really argue, that the universe cannot >> have enough information to realize all the non-zero states on the diagonal >> and so only a few can be realized and that realization is per the Born >> rule. This is what Carroll would dismiss as a "disappearing world >> interpretation"; but it would provide a physical principle for why worlds >> disappear, i.e. branches of lowest probability are continually pruned. >> >> Brent >> >> >> > I have one question (for Carroll or Zurek): > > Suppose world W branches *(in reality, not in "bookkeeping")* to worlds > W0 and W1. > > If reality is pure information (basically purely mathematical bits of 0s > and 1s), then that sort of "production" seems OK. > > But what if W is (or contains) matter. Based on matter contents of W, W0, > and W1: > > *If the matter contents of W0 plus W1 combined is greater than the matter > content of W,* > > *how was the extra matter "produced"?* > > (According to John Clark, people who have read Carroll's book know the > answer to this question.) > I can see that you have a problem with this but if it’s how the world is who are you to tell it it should not be that way? > -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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/CAH%3D2ypXKK69ZE-8z84d5X_SOj6jwX07UC3i71Cj-cUyXYhD3GQ%40mail.gmail.com.
