On Friday, November 29, 2024 at 8:10:11 AM UTC-7 smitra wrote:
On 29-11-2024 15:36, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 4:40 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> _> As Barandes writes in (which you should watch)_ > > NO OFFENSE BRENT BUT I'M NOT GONNA WATCH AN HOUR LONG VIDEO BY > SOMEBODY I'VE NEVER HEARD OF PROMOTING A THEORY THAT I CONSIDER > EVEN LESS CREDIBLE THAN THE "DINOSAURS NEVER EXISTED THEORY", > ESPECIALLY WHEN I NOTE IT ONLY HAS 12 VIEWS. > >>>>> THE ENTIRETY OF REALITY CONSISTS OF A UNIVERSAL WAVE FUNCTION >>> (UWF), IT DESCRIBES THE POSITION AND MOMENTUM OF EVERY PARTICLE IN >>> EXISTENCE AT ANY INSTANT IN TIME. IF A HUMAN COULD OBSERVE THINGS >>> FROM THE OUTSIDE HE WOULDN'T NEED TO RESORT TO PROBABILITY, >> >> _> Really? _ > > YES REALLY. OR DO YOU DISPUTE THE FACT THAT SCHRODINGER'S EQUATION > IS DETERMINISTIC? > >> _> What about atomic decay?_ > > WHAT ABOUT IT? MOST BRENT MEEKERS WILL SEE AN ATOM THAT HAS A > HALF-LIFE OF ONE HOUR DECAY CLOSE TO THAT TIME BECAUSE THOSE BRANCHES > OF THE MULTIVERSE HAVE THE GREATEST QUANTUM AMPLITUDE (OR AS I LIKE TO > THINK OF IT ON A BRANCHING 2-D DIAGRAM, THOSE LINES HAVE A GREATER > THICKNESS) BUT A FEW BRENT MEEKERS WILL SEE THE ATOM DECAY AFTER ONLY > A 10TH OF A SECOND, AND OTHER BRENT MEEKERS WILL HAVE TO WAIT 2 HOURS > BEFORE IT DECAYS, AND OTHER BRENT MEEKERS NEED TO WAIT FOR 4 HOURS, > AND 8 HOURS, AND 16 HOURS, AND 32 HOURS ETC. AND A VERY FEW BRENT > MEEKERS WILL DIE OF OLD AGE BEFORE THEY SEE THE ATOM DECAY. > What is also worthwhile to consider in these discussions about probability, Born rule etc. the fact that probability cannot be rigorously defined in a physical context as David Deutsch explains here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzSE4Hoxbc&t=1036s For practical purposes this is not a problem. But it is a problem for formulating fundamental laws of nature in terms of probability if one cannot rigorously define probability without resorting to mathematical concepts that cannot be physically realized. And while in the MWI one may actually get around this issue with probability if one assumes an infinite number of effective branches. So, it's then actually more of a problem for single universe interpretations, because in such a setting there is not going to be an exact physical representation of probability. Saibal *Can you name any mathematical concept that is perfectly realized in the* *real world? IMO, MW is a cult, having some relation to the Trump cult when* *it succumbs to distortions of reality. Deutsch is a good example of the * *disease afflicting physics today. He just can't grasp the MW is many orders* *of magnitude worse than probability in one world. Really; many orders of* *magnitude WORSE. You guys keep inventing wholly imaginary universes* *when you have virtually ZERO grasp what ONE entire universe IS ! AG * -- 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/8754a139-0fd9-4edf-9949-dcb096a89a6en%40googlegroups.com.
