On 11/19/2019 1:43 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 12:27:21 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 11/19/2019 12:30 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 6:50:38 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 11/18/2019 4:33 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 3:48:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
In using path integrals you arrive a probabilities for
various possible outcomes. But that's not the end of
the science. You also observe/measure/experience some
particular outcome. And then you compute future path
integrals starting from the observed state...using the
observed state implies you went from a state of
uncertainty expressed by probabilities to a state of
certainty regarding the new state....aka using knowledge.
Brent
*Knowledge* is something having to do with human brains
("knowing"), and when they became the "engines" of speaking
and writing, then *knowledge* could be communicated between
intelligent beings. (Perhaps other primates too are
*knowledge*-able, but that's debatable.)
Now it seems to me that in the first few billion years at
least of the universe (after the Big Bang) there were no
knowledge-able beings, There hadn't been time for them to
evolve anywhere.
But during that time quantum processes (and chemical, and at
least somewhere at some point biological precesses) were
going along fine without any knowledge-able beings exiting,
and thus there was no knowledge changing" -- because there
was no knowledge during that time.
So how is knowledge needed as a concept in any way in QM
when QM processes were occurring in the universe fine before
knowledge existed?
Whoever put "knowledge: in QM screwed up.
You're dodging the question like you're running for office on
the know-nothing ticket.
I've already asked all the way I can think of what it is that
causes you to change your estimate of the future evolution of
a quantum system when you measure it. I've concluded you
have no knowledge of this process.
Brent
You are dodging the question:
W/as there any knowledge to be changed (or updated) - or my
"knowledge of this process" - or "my estimate of the future
evolution of a quantum process" - anywhere in he universe 10
billion years ago?/
Your knowledge of processes 10 billion years ago is based on
measurements done in telescopes and laboratories today and
inferences from them.
Knowledge (changing/updating knowledge) in any way whatsoever is
*completely irrelevant* to anything in quantum mechanics.
Forget "knowledge". I'm not arguing about semantics. I'm asking
what changes when there is a measurement of a quantum system?
Brent
The reality of processes 10 billion years ago are not dependent on any
being ever measuring them and having their knowledge updated.
A diffraction pattern emerges in video recordings of single-photon
double-slit experiments whether anyone sees the video or not. what
changes is the image on the video frame-by-frame. If you take a video
of a an arrow shot from a bow, it follows a parabolic curve, and what
changes is its position frame-by-frame.
So when your path integral formulation predicts various probabilities
for position of photon absorptions by the video camera nothing has
changed when positions are actualized in the recording. All the same
probabilities obtain. Which is the MWI view.
Brent
--
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/f891907b-d452-c4d3-2fe9-0b6803843c64%40verizon.net.
