On 11/12/2024 5:25 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 11:13 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]>
wrote:
*Me: >> It is completely arbitrary, but whatever arbitrary
access you choose to measure you seem to endow that particular
axis, out of the infinite number of other axes you could have
chosen, as being special. And that seems very strange,
especially because in most quantum interpretations the
definition of the word "measurement" is extremely murky. The
one exception is Many Worlds, in it a measurement is simply a
change.*
/>No,/
*Yes!*
/> it's a very special kind of change that causes the world to
split into orthogonal sub-worlds in such a way that the sub-worlds
have "weights" or "numbers" implementing the Born rule*,*/
*Please name a change that is _NOT_"very special", a change in which
Schrodinger's Equation and the Born Rule are unable to provide a
probability of occurrence, even in principle.
*
Why? Do you suppose that because many other formulations would also be
/very special/, that would excuse your formulation that measurement is
/simply a change/. It is not special at all in the sense that it is not
specific. It includes no specification that realizes the Born rule nor
process for realizing it either via "weights" or "branch counting".
**
>/everything in each world is the same except things that depend on
the measurement result./*//*
*The key word in the above is "except". By definition, things that
don't depend on measurement results will not change because if they
did then they would depend on measurement results.*
The key word in the above is "the" which is absent between "on" and
"measurement".
**
> /"measurement" is not special (it's just any interaction)/
*Exactly, but ..... of measurementyou just said "it's a very special
kind of change". Something does not compute, but I agree with you
about putting "measurement" in quotation marks, Many Worlds is the
only quantum Interpretation in which that word has a clear meaning. *
/> there are a bazillion measurements per second, if not
more,**and each one causes the world to split./
*Exactly! So I forget, what are we arguing about?
*
How the Born rule gets realized. You say it has something to do with
measurement, but that is "simply change".
/> It's not clear whether these "measurements" propagate world
splits instantaneously or at the speed of light./
*Many Worlds makes no prediction *
Many worlds makes no prediction about anything testable. May be that's
why it's so successful, along with other religions.
*about that because it makes no observable difference, you are free to
assume that the split is instantaneous or that it propagates at the
speed of light. *
/> Bell thought his experiment would prove that hidden variable
theories were right/
*Bell thought _NON-LOCAL_ hidden variable theories were right, that's
why he was a fan of Pilot Wave Theory, it's realistic and
deterministic but non-local. Bell disliked Many Worlds for the same
reason that Roger Penrose does, they both thought that the very idea
of the universe splitting is a Reductio Ad Absurdum and thus not worth
considering; but they both forgot that being very strange and being
logically self-contradictory are not the same thing. I think if Many
Worlds is untrue then something even stranger is.
*
Would it be stranger if, among possibilities with non-zero
probabilities, one occurred and other's didn't?
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3d6c28fb-8ddf-414c-91ba-9af00a04aff2%40gmail.com.
