> On 26 Sep 2019, at 14:44, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Le jeu. 26 sept. 2019 à 14:39, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com > <mailto:stath...@gmail.com>> a écrit : > > > On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 11:48, Philip Thrift <cloudver...@gmail.com > <mailto:cloudver...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 4:30:01 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > > On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 09:41, Philip Thrift <cloud...@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 >>> <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 > > Differentiation rather that duplication of matter is one possibility, but > duplication of matter is not logically impossible either. Empirically, we > have that matter cannot be created, but that is within a single world. > -- > > Also why would matter need to be "created" if it's a property of matter to be > multiple localized, in this view world splitting does not create anything, it > separates observation of the same matter... but anyway as you're saying > nothing logically prevent matter creation in mwi either.
And is it different? If we define matter by what is observable repetitively in a sharable way, then those two presentations can easily be considered equivalent. What is matter? All I see are people doing measurements, obtaining numbers, and inferring laws relating those numbers. Some would say that it is different when we personally interact with matter, but when we look more closely we see that we are constituted of “amoebas", with the “cable", going from sensory apparatus, collecting photons for example, and transmitting numbers to diverse groupes of amoebas, filtering and handling that information, leading to chatty numerous conversation, with sometimes some order send to other amoebas related to the motor cells capable of moving the whole colony. This, of course, seems to forget the qualia that the person feels “apparently during that computation”. It does not—taking the nuances of the self—reference modes into account. But it associates the qualia, not to the computational state realised by the amoebas work, but to the infinitely many equivalent state realised in arithmetic. A priori there are far too much, but the math shows that everything needed for a quantum measure is already there. Bruno > > Quentin > > 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 > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypXMAsjQQpj%3DiF8_aV-pQVjgF0Jjxc9awZYFZ-AgTERRtA%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypXMAsjQQpj%3DiF8_aV-pQVjgF0Jjxc9awZYFZ-AgTERRtA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > > -- > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger > Hauer) > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAo3QmCFF9zzAxm62iGmj%2BeBFvCaqqR3y1kzMLjUez8bxA%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAo3QmCFF9zzAxm62iGmj%2BeBFvCaqqR3y1kzMLjUez8bxA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/AEE7E598-4FE9-4854-A86A-8BC1EFC93630%40ulb.ac.be.
