On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 1:56 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
> *before Everett, if someone did a quantum experiment, they'd get some > result, but couldn't predict exactly what it would be.* *True. If you're only interested in predicting what reading you're going to get on your voltmeter then Shut Up And Calculate works just fine. But if you want to know why we need to resort to probabilities at all when Schrodinger's equation is 100% deterministic then Many Worlds can explain why that is, and so can Objective Collapse and Pilot Wave, although they require more assumptions than Many Worlds. * *By contrast if you ask somebody who insists but the quantum wave function is not "real " why do we need to resort to probabilities at all when Schrodinger's equation is 100% deterministic they could not embrace any of the above quantum interpretations so the only answer they could give you is "Shut Up And Calculate". * *> CMIIAW* > *IHA* * there seems to be a psychological relationship, or kinship, between the > advocate of the MWI, and Trumpism;* > *Wow, calling a guy known for disliking Trump a Trump supporter, what a witty and original insult! I've never heard that one before, except for the 19 dozen times I've heard it from you. * *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* . > On 11/19/2024 5:13 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 5:37 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > *> MWI needs to explain how and when the worlds split,* > > > *As I've said many many times before, the world splits whenever there is a > change that produces a difference between the two worlds, conscious human > observers are capable of producing such a change that makes the universe > split, but so can dead human cadavers which are presumably non-conscious > non-observers. In Many Worlds, anything and everything that is not > forbidden to exist by the laws of physics is required to exist; in other > words, **the laws of physics work the same way for EVERYTHING. * > > >> *The useful role that Many Worlds provides is that it doesn't need to > explain what a "measurement" or an "observer" is* > > > *> LOL. You just wrote three paragraphs immediately above each of which > referred to "observed". * > > > *If you ask me what would an observer expect to see in a certain > situation, then for me to answer your question I'm going to have to use the > word "observer". I'm not afraid of that word because Many Worlds does not > say observers don't exist, instead it says it doesn't care what an > "observer" is or whether such a thing exists or not because the laws of > physics always treat everything the same way.* > > *A particle X has a Half-life of 60 seconds and Y (which could be you or > it could be anything else) interacts with X once a second, thus after one > second the probability of Y being in the same universe as the one where the > atom decayed is 50%, and after 30 seconds the probability (using the > formula P(decay by time t) = 1 - e^(-λt) ,where λ is ln2/60 minutes) of **Y > being in the same universe as the one where the atom decayed is about 29%, > and after 10 minutes the probability is about 11%. * > > *As you can see, the more often Y interacts with particle X the more > likely it is that Y and undecayed particle X will still be in the same > universe, although if Y is a conscious human observer he would probably use > different words to describe the experience, such as "the more closely I > watch the atom the less likely it is to decay". * > > *We know for certain, thanks to experiment, that this Quantum Zeno Effect > exists, and Many Worlds has no trouble clearly explaining how that could > happen, if Copenhagen wants to explain how this could occur they're going > to need to crank up their bafflegab knob to 11. * > > *>>nor does it need to explain exactly, or even approximately, where the > Heisenberg cut is.* > > > *> No, it just assumes there is a point at which the world becomes > multiple and measurement is complete.* > > > *Many Worlds needs no such assumption, in fact it doesn't even make any > sense; in Many Worlds you can always replace the word "measurement" with > "change" or "interaction", and changes and interactions are never > complete. Copenhagen is the one that needs to make that assumption, and > the theory that needs the fewest assumptions is the best theory. * > > > -- 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/CAJPayv0vpdy2J5pevNnfRD4yJv8G09fQt2M9PzJJbEAZHhaYag%40mail.gmail.com.
