On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 4:55:11 PM UTC-5 Bruce wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 10:32 PM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 7:01 AM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> *> In all cases, if the which-way information is preserved, no >>>>> interference is seen. * >>>> >>>> >>>> True. >>>> >>>> *> But if the which-way information is quantum erased, interference is >>>>> visible. * >>>> >>>> >>>> > Also true .... but then… why would you say "*I, too, would expect >>>> to see interference bands*" if Deutsch's experiment was actually >>>> performed? >>>> >>> >>> >>> > *Because no which-way measurement is actually made in the Deutsch >>> set-up.* >>> >> >> Then why does the document insist that there was and why does it keep on >> insisting no matter how many times the experiment is repeated? Do you think >> the universe is inherently a liar and *NEVER* tells the truth? >> > > > Maybe the experiment does not do what you think it does. > > > >> I stopped reading Hossenfelder sometime ago when she started defending >>>> Superdeterminism; yes it can explain all the weirdness in the quantum >>>> world >>>> but it requires, quite literally, the greatest violation of Occam's razor >>>> that is possible in order to do so. I would even go so far as to say >>>> Superdeterminism requires an *INFINITE *violation of Occam's razor, >>>> and that is not a word I use very often. For that reason I don't see how >>>> any rational person could take Superdeterminism seriously. >>>> >>> >>> *> Belief in superdeterminism, or Zoroastrianism, or whatever, does not >>> mean that everything a person writes is nonsense. To believe so is an >>> example of the very worst form of argumentum ad hominem * >>> >> >> *Don't give me that crap! *Are you really claiming that I don't have the >> right to stop reading somebody if I choose to? >> > > You can read or not read whoever you want. But that is not an argument > against any views that they might express. > > It's relevant because Many Worlds and Superdeterminism are competitors, >> and Superdeterminism is as utterly ridiculous as saying "*because of God*" >> is the answer to all of life's mysteries. >> >> > *(or feminem in Hossenfelder's case).* >>> >> >> If I criticize a physicist who happens to be black or a woman that does >> not necessarily mean that I'm a racist or a misogynist, and to claim it >> does is a very fine example of an argument by ad hominem. >> >> *> Besides, Sean Carroll gives essentially the same explanation from a >>> many-worlds perspective:* >> >> >>> *https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/?s=quantum+erase* >>> <https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/?s=quantum+erase> >>> >> >> If it really is "*essentially the same explanation*" then obviously it >> does not contradict Deutsch's proposed experiment because Carroll is one of >> the most vigorous advocates of Everett's many worlds idea, he wrote an >> entire book about it, a very good book. >> > > Deutsch's proposal does not "test many worlds", and Carroll makes no such > claim. Sean simply explains delayed choice and the quantum eraser as > straightforward quantum effects that are not in the least mysterious. They > do not depend on any particular interpretation of quantum mechanics. > > Bruce >
I would have to research this, but as I remember Deutsch's argument involved some sort of scalar variable or field that was involved with how many world splitting occurred nonlocally. LC -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5a503a4d-e78c-494d-9213-5586c777e626n%40googlegroups.com.
