On Saturday, November 23, 2024 at 6:47:52 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 9:19 AM PGC <[email protected]> wrote: > [the Gödelian critique] *Applied to quantum mechanics and ontology* > *indicates that any framework aiming for ontological finality will inevitably encounter unprovable truths if it includes arithmetic or its use in its formulations. * *But Physics is not mathematics. In physics you don't need to prove experimental results, you need to demonstrate them. Theory is used to predict and explain those experimental results, which Objective Collapse and Pilot Wave and Many Worlds all can do. The best theory is the one that can do so with the fewest assumptions; and in that regard Many Worlds is the clear winner. But even if you knew for a fact that Objective Collapse, or Pilot Wave, or Many Worlds was 100% correct, you still couldn't claim to have reached ontological finality. * *You may have noticed I didn't include Copenhagen or Quantum Bayesianism, that's because they don't even claim to have anything to do with ontology, final or otherwise, and they don't even pretend to explain anything, they're for people who only care about predicting what value they're going to get on their voltmeter.* * > Collapse postulates introduce "magic" by assuming the wavefunction's reality only to dismiss it post-measurement, * *It's even worse than that because they can't tell you exactly, or even approximately, what a "measurement" is. * *Only true in the context of Trump physics, whereas, for example, in normal physics we can measure spin using an SG apparutus, and we know we're measuring spin. AG * *> while MWI faces the unresolved challenge of deriving probabilities without external axioms.* *Well, MWI can clearly explain why you need probabilities even though Schrodinger's Equation is 100% deterministic. And mathematically we know that taking the square of absolute value of an equation that contains complex numbers, like Schrodinger's does, is the only way to get a set of real numbers between zero and one that add up to exactly one, which is exactly what we need for probability. And we know that if your eyes are closed and you bet on which world you're in and you want to win then you should bet you're in the world that has the largest quantum magnitude, if you keep repeating that you will make more money with that strategy than with any other. And MWI can do all that without introducing any assumptions except that Schrodinger's Equation means what it says.* *In fact you've added immensely to the assumptions of S's equation, such as the departure from the frequency interpretation of probability, and the creation of many worlds without knowing the frequency and boundaries of these worlds. When will you admit this fact and stop with the misleading BS? AG* *> **While frameworks like MWI or collapse postulates have epistemic value, they are better seen as tools for exploring the boundaries of what can be explained or inspiration for developing new problems and possible application, rather than as definitive ontological inquiry.* *If one is interested in exploring the fundamental boundaries of what we can know, I can't think of a better way than trying to figure out what quantum mechanics means; we will never reach the goal of ontological certainty but I think we can go further than we are right now.2* -- 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/eccb713d-9f2a-4a7d-8a96-0a797e7b7716n%40googlegroups.com.
