Le dim. 17 janv. 2021 à 12:53, Pierz Newton-John <pier...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > > On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 10:15 pm, Alan Grayson <agrayson2...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 9:55:50 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 3:10 pm, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Saturday, January 16, 2021 at 7:28:14 PM UTC-7 Pierz wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 3:49 am, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> *What would be the mechanism or process for other worlds to interact >>>>>> with each other, that is to interfere with each other? This is the >>>>>> gorilla >>>>>> in the room that many MWI enthusiasts ignore; awesome speculation with >>>>>> zero >>>>>> grounding in empirical evidence. Something definitely awry with this pov. >>>>>> AG* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I’m not an “enthusiast”. It’s a physical theory not a football team. >>>>> If anything I dislike the idea of all those alternative variants of me and >>>>> my life. If MWI is disproved I’ll be perfectly happy. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *It can't be disproved because it makes no verifiable predictions! AG* >>>> >>>> >>>>> It’s just that it unfortunately makes more sense in my assessment than >>>>> any other alternative, so I entertain it as the most likely explanation >>>>> for >>>>> the observed data. To say it has zero grounding in empirical data is >>>>> simply >>>>> false - it’s the theory that simply takes the empirical data to its >>>>> logical conclusion without adding a collapse postulate. The wave function >>>>> is the whole thing. Asking what the mechanism is for worlds to interfere >>>>> with one another is the same as asking what the mechanism is for the >>>>> Schrödinger wave function to interfere with itself. In the dual slit >>>>> experiment it’s an observed fact. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *The SE, when solved, give us the WF, which can be decomposed into a >>>> superposition of eigenstates in some appropriate vector space. But this >>>> superposition is not unique. So in what sense does the SE give us "an >>>> observed fact"? In fact, with numerous distinct possible superpositions, >>>> the worlds of the MWI seem ill-defined. AG* >>>> >>> >>> I have wondered myself whether basis selection is a problem for MWI. I’m >>> less sure now that it is. Environmental einselection may resolve the basis >>> problem. We set up an experimental apparatus to select some basis, but >>> that’s just a special case of what happens naturally, whereby the >>> characteristics of the environment select the basis. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> It makes no sense for it to behave that way if we stick to the old >>>>> view of matter as little hard balls, but there you go. When we talk of >>>>> “worlds”, it just refers to a ramifying quantum state, and it is in the >>>>> nature of quantum states to interfere with themselves per the dual slit >>>>> experiment, even if they become large and complex. Interference ceases >>>>> when >>>>> two branches of the universal quantum state diverge far enough that they >>>>> completely decohere. When you say “what is the mechanism?” that really >>>>> means “what is the mathematical description?” in physics. Anything else is >>>>> just imprecise circumlocution like the word “world” in this context. So >>>>> the >>>>> mechanism for interference is the Schrödinger equation, which predicts >>>>> such >>>>> interference. MWI adds precisely nothing to that mathematical description. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *The problem, of course, is that the MWI offers no concept of the >>>> process of interference among OTHER worlds, so it's no surprise that it >>>> adds nothing to the mathematical description. AG (More at end of this >>>> confusing file.)* >>>> >>> >>> there you go with “of course” again as if your argument were self >>> evident. Theres no distinction between worlds (this or other) so of course >>> there is interference on and among the other branches too. I don’t know >>> what you’re talking about. >>> >> >> *I strongly disagree. IMO, it is self-evident. My response is at end of >> this file. AG * >> >>> >>>> *The ontological status of those OTHER worlds is problem, but that's >>>> not exactly what I am saying. Rather, I am saying is that the MW hypothesis >>>> leads nowhere. It has no predictive value that I can discern. It's just a >>>> form of possibly consistent ideology. Compare it to Einstein's postulate of >>>> the invariance of the SoL. It's really quite paradoxical when you think >>>> about; that the SoL does not depend on the motion of source or recipient. >>>> But from it we get the LT and a host of verifiable predictions. SR is a >>>> scientific theory since it can be disproven. I don't see that anything >>>> verifiable is predicted by the MWI. As such, it shouldn't be regarded as a >>>> scientific theory. It can't be so considered since it offer no path for >>>> being disproven. AG * >>>> >>> >>> That is not what you said in your initial argument at all. >>> >> >> * It was about Born's rule failing in the MWI because the OTHER worlds >> don't interact. AG* >> >> >>> But to run with it, falsifiability is definitely a problem for MWI, but >>> it’s not as straightforward as you make out. There are proposals for >>> falsifying it but they are technically too difficult to carry out at the >>> moment. Falsifiability is not an intrinsic property of a theory but a >>> property of the theory in relation to the current state of knowledge and >>> technology. Popper was not the last word in the Philosophy of Science. Paul >>> Feyerabend has pointed out many cases where the process of scientific >>> progress did not proceed according to a Popperian model at all. String >>> theory also suffers from falsifiability problems but the advance of theory >>> and technique may well (I presume will eventually) resolve the question of >>> its validity. The world is the way it is regardless of whether or not we >>> can prove it to be that way, and what we can prove or disprove is >>> constantly evolving. >>> >> >> *I've never encountered a Many World advocate who indicated a possible >> prediction of the interpretation. Can you give one example? But I agree >> that theories can exist where some degree of verification of predictions is >> presently beyond our technical capabilities, and that could change in the >> future. AG* >> >>> >>>>> “There’s no ensemble from which to derive probabilities because all >>>>> the other observers are purely imaginary” is thus a circular argument. >>>>> That >>>>> is my point. Please try to get over your abhorrence for MWI long enough to >>>>> get it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *That might be a circular argument, but **I never made it. Rather, I >>>> claimed there is no interaction among the OTHER worlds, so EACH world >>>> records only ONE measurement. Consequently, no OTHER world records an >>>> ensemble and Born's rule fails in those worlds. AG * >>>> >>> >> >>> Which still makes zero sense to me. Born’s rule can’t fail in those >>> OTHER worlds unless it fails as well in this one because no world is >>> privileged. To say otherwise is to add your own weird ingredient to MWI. >>> >> >> *IMO, this is where you've fallen into the delusion. Suppose 10 horses >> are in a race and you bet on one to be the winner. When the race finishes, >> at that very moment presumably, 9 additional worlds are created according >> to the MWI, where each of the losers in the race you witnessed, is the >> winner. These worlds are surely NOT equally privileged. 9 of them came into >> existence because the race was run in what I will call THIS world. It's the >> world where you will win or lose your bet. The other worlds are derivative, >> having been derived from the race and world in which you placed your bet. >> AG* >> >>> > Are you kidding? “At that very moment presumably 9 additional worlds are > created...” it’s so wrong I don’t even know how to start correcting it. > That is nothing like what MWI says. But I can see I’m not going to get > anywhere with trying to explain this to you when so many before have > failed, so I’ll bow out now. > Il n'y a pas pire sourd que celui qui ne veut pas entendre... there is none so deaf as those who will not hear >>>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >> Google Groups "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/xsl8cSDT4M8/unsubscribe >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/e0cfa853-2076-48fc-93fc-1b8076a7244cn%40googlegroups.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e0cfa853-2076-48fc-93fc-1b8076a7244cn%40googlegroups.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/CAArMS014TWnA-V9ZMEPiJOM47zd6%2BXf03yfrphi5xZnj0cC0GQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAArMS014TWnA-V9ZMEPiJOM47zd6%2BXf03yfrphi5xZnj0cC0GQ%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/CAMW2kApjmSjYO6JfY1eFDkbHzvHPCMFx%2B%3DabWshZKNobV%2BKqUg%40mail.gmail.com.
