On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 11:29 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
* > You skipped the "how" part. If a particle interacts so that it's state > changes to A with probabilty 0.99 and B with probability 0.01 is that a > change that produces a difference between two worlds?* > *Yes. And you're asking exactly the same question that you asked and I already answered in some detail in the thread called "Branch counting (was: Spin Superposition)".* *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. * > > *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* > > > -- 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/CAJPayv3TQN5Ehp77X%2BsF1iuenk1x8drKaUHMRfjD7Q7bfs9Uow%40mail.gmail.com.
