Not to choke the flow of the convo, but some years ago Albrecht also worked on the Observer issue and time via re-examining the work of Ludwig Boltzmann and his Boltzmann Brain. Please continue. http://clearlyexplained.com/boltzmann-brains/index.html
-----Original Message----- From: Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Apr 17, 2022 6:00 pm Subject: Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule On 4/17/2022 7:11 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: A simple example of your point is a gas at some temperature and pressure, confined in some volume. For a given particle in the ensemble, we can't determine its exact path because we lack information about its interactions. But if we had that knowledge, we could determine its exact path, and any uncertainties in that information would translate into uncertainties in its path. But inherent randomness in QM is different and probably has nothing to do with the UP. Did you read the paper I cited?: https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953v3 Brent For example, for a small uncertainty in position, there is a large uncertainty in velocity, so we can get simultaneous measurements of position and velocity, but the latter will manifest large fluctuations for succeeding measurements. Thus, the "inherent randomness" in QM is the assumption that every individual trial or outcome of a measurement is UNcaused; that is, the particular outcome can't be traced to some prior state -- what AE called God playing dice with the universe. AG On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 6:34:51 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:; Consider the converse. When you comprehend some physical evolution, is it essential that it be deterministic. Every event has many causes, do you have to know every one of them to comprehend it? Think of all the things you would have to say did NOT happen in order that your comprehension be complete. The way I look at it, we call classical mechanics deterministic only because most of the time there are a few (not a bazillion) factors we can approximately determine in advance, so that an almost certain prediction, within a range of uncertainty, is possible. Even within strict determinism there are at this very moment gamma rays from distant supernova approaching you and which cannot be predicted but which might influence your thoughts and instruments. Brent On 4/16/2022 5:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: I think you're fooling yourself if you think a non-determinsitic process is comprehensible. AG On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:46:09 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/16/2022 4:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:03:55 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/16/2022 2:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 1:44:09 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/16/2022 8:34 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: Of course I favour the first version of the argument, using the many-world formulation of collapse, to avoid the "God plays dice" nightmare. Why this fear of true randomness? We have all kinds of classical randomness we just attributed to "historical accident". Would it really make any difference it were due to inherent quantum randomness? Albrect and Phillips have made an argument that there is quantum randomness even nominally classical dynamics. https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953v3 True randomness implies unintelligibility; that is, no existing physical process for causing the results of measurements. AG "It happened at random in accordance with a Poisson process with rate parameter 0.123" seems perfectly intelligible to me. There is a physical description of the system with allows you to predict that, including the value of the rate parameter. It only differs from deterministic physics in that it doesn't say when the event happens. I always wonder if people who have this dogmatic rejection of randomness understand that quantum randomness is very narrow. Planck's constant is very small and it introduces randomness, but with a definite distribution and on certain variables. It's not "anything can happen" as it seems some people fear. Brent Every single trial is unintelligible. AG I find that remark unintelligble. I don't think "intelligble" means what you think it means. Brent It means there exists no definable physical process to account for the outcome of a single trial. AG That's what is usually called "non-deterministic". "Unintelligble" means not understandable or incomprehensible. 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-li...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f873f226-b8f7-40db-9036-ceb8b31427een%40googlegroups.com. -- 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/2d3b652e-8a5d-4755-962f-52a5d7691f71n%40googlegroups.com. -- 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/24e6cd68-7a54-2b8a-b060-2f0a9af92e53%40gmail.com. -- 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/1750708718.418280.1650281682079%40mail.yahoo.com.
