On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 8:33 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
*>> There must be a fundamental reason why we can't make predictions better >> than those allowed by HUP, and self-locating uncertainty is that reason.* > > > *>**?? Most physicist think it's because conjugate operators don't > commute. * > *That is true but of no help whatsoever in explaining what's actually going on. I want to know WHY momentum and position, and energy and time are conjugate operators, I want to know why Schrodinger's equation and the Born rule describe what we see in experiments.* *>> If you make a record of which slit an electron went through in the two >> slit experiment then you will not see an interference pattern on a screen, >> but if you don't make a record of it then you will. And if you make a >> record and place the screen a light year away from the slits but erase that >> record one second before the electrons hit the screen then you will see an >> interference pattern. This is certainly odd but it poses no problem for >> Many Worlds.* > > > *> You only see the interference pattern after you know the identity of > the ones whose partner was erased. Otherwise you could use it for faster > than light signalling. * > *Also true but irrelevant to the subject at hand. * *> But it's not subjective; the pattern is really there for anyone to see.* > *I agree, it's not subjective. Anyone could see the pattern, anyone who is in a universe where the information about which slit the electrons went through before they hit the screen does NOT exist. But anyone in a universe where that information DOES exist will NOT see an interference pattern.* *> **It's curious that you criticize QBism because it's not explaining > what's "actually going on"* > *I respect QBism, a.k.a. Shut Up And Calculate, more than Copenhagen because it's more honest, it doesn't even attempt to explain what's actually going on, Copenhagen attempts to do so but the result is a ridiculous convoluted mess. Copenhagen fans can't agree, even among themselves, what it's saying. * > *> but you like MWI versus spontaneous collapse**. Yet spontaneous > collapse does explain what's "actually going on". * > *That's why I think MWI and spontaneous collapse are the two least bad quantum hypotheses that attempt to explain what's actually happening; they may both be wrong but at least they're clear and at least they try; the others just give up or hide behind an opaque fog of bafflegab.* *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* ev2 -- 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/CAJPayv1G%3D%3DSE1Urs3vSctfs23ceQrLbZFEc8Ue%2ByjWB8XuEUWA%40mail.gmail.com.
