Re: The problem with physics

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 3:00:25 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/20/2019 11:49 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 12:59:32 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/19/2019 11:41 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/19/2019 1:43 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  A diffraction pattern emerges in video recordings of single-photon 
>>> double-slit experiments whether anyone sees the video or not. what changes 
>>> is the image on the video frame-by-frame. If you take a video of a an arrow 
>>> shot from a bow, it follows a parabolic curve, and what changes is its 
>>> position frame-by-frame.
>>>
>>>
>>> So when your path integral formulation predicts various probabilities 
>>> for position of photon absorptions by the video camera nothing has changed 
>>> when positions are actualized in the recording.  All the same probabilities 
>>> obtain.  Which is the MWI view.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In the cases of *Quantum Measure Theory* (Rafael Sorkin), *Real Path 
>> Quantum Theory* (Adrain Kent), or -- in another type of formulation -- 
>> *Cellular 
>> Automaton Interpretation* [of Quantum Mechanics] (Gerard 't Hooft), I 
>> don't see what "change" means in your terms.
>>
>>
>> Those methods assign probabilities (measures) to specific possible 
>> outcomes (measurements).  When one is observed, it is used as an initial 
>> condition for further predictions.  If it's not observed then further 
>> predictions are conditioned on all the possible outcomes.  That's a change.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
> Except in the theories -- QMT, RPQT -- themselves, nothing is observed (or 
> needs to be observed), because *there are no observers* ("alternative to 
> the textbook formalism of state-vectors and external *observers*").t
>
>
> And that's why they fail to predict observations.  But they do assign 
> probabilities to specific events and they condition those on prior events 
> or not.
>
> Brent
>
>


They all make predictions.

*The Schrödinger equation is not the only way to study quantum mechanical 
systems and*

* make predictions.*

*The other formulations of quantum mechanics include matrix mechanics, 
introduced by Werner Heisenberg, and the path integral formulation*, 
developed chiefly by Richard Feynman. Paul Dirac incorporated matrix 
mechanics and the Schrödinger equation into a single formulation. *

** From path integral formulation to Schrödinger's equation*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relation_between_Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_equation_and_the_path_integral_formulation_of_quantum_mechanics#From_path_integral_formulation_to_Schr%C3%B6dinger's_equation


@philipthrift

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6690c477-1869-45e3-9133-43a01cea2f22%40googlegroups.com.

RE: has evidence pointing to the exisrance of a new boson been found. See arvix link to paper

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

New evidence supporting the existence of the hypothetic X17 particle

A.J. Krasznahorkay, M. Csatlos, L. Csige, J. Gulyas, M. Koszta, B. Szihalmi, J. 
Timar, D.S. Firak, A. Nagy, N.J. Sas, A. Krasznahorkay(Submitted on 23 Oct 2019)
We observed electron-positron pairs from the electro-magnetically forbidden M0 
transition depopulating the 21.01 MeV 0− state in 4He. A peak was observed in 
their e+e− angular correlations at 115∘ with 7.2σ significance, and could be 
described by assuming the creation and subsequent decay of a light particle 
with mass of mXc2=16.84±0.16(stat)±0.20(syst) MeV and ΓX= 3.9×10−5 eV. 
According to the mass, it is likely the same X17 particle, which we recently 
suggested [Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 052501 (2016)] for describing the anomaly 
observed in 8Be.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.10459





The values for the hypothetical x17 boson that this team observed with the 
Helium (4) source aligns closely to those observed earlier with the Berylium 
(8) source.




Here is their summary:

 In summary, we have observed 
e+e− pairs from an electro-magnetically forbidden M0 transition depopulating 
the 21.01 MeV 0− state in 4He. The energy sum of the pairs corresponds to the 
energy of the transition. The measured e+e−angular correlation for the pairs 
shows a peak at 115∘, supporting the creation and decay of the X17 particle 
with mass of mXc2=16.84±0.16(stat)±0.20(syst)MeV. This mass agrees nicely with 
the value of mXc2=17.01 ±0.16 MeV we previously derived in the 8Be experiment 
kr16 ; kra17 ; kra19 . The partial width of the X17 particle decay is esimated 
to be: ΓX= 3.9×10−5 eV. We are expecting more, independent experimental results 
to come for the X17 particle in the coming years.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/224292113.3216858.1574298563593%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: The problem with physics

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 5:22:55 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/20/2019 3:28 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 3:00:35 PM UTC-7, scerir wrote: 
>>
>> Nevertheless, the SWE does not give a probability without some further 
>> assumptions. Why do you think that MWI advocates spend so much time an 
>> effort trying to derive the Born rule? You cannot get probabilities from 
>> the Schroedinger equation without some additional assumptions. 
>>
>> Bruce 
>>
>> In his Nobel lecture (The statistical interpretation of quantum 
>> mechanics, 1954)
>> Born writes: "Again an idea of Einstein’s gave me the lead. He had tried 
>> to make the duality of particles - light quanta or photons - and waves 
>> comprehensible by interpreting the square of the optical wave amplitudes as 
>> probability density for the occurrence of photons. This concept could at 
>> once be carried over to the psi-function: |psi|^2 ought to represent the 
>> probability density for electrons (or other particles). It was easy to 
>> assert this, but how could it be proved?" 
>>
>
> How could any of the postulates of QM "be proved"? All we can do is make 
> assumptions and determine if they give good predictions. (Have you seen my 
> email?) AG 
>
> Of course it was "proven" in the empirical sense of being used to 
> successfully predict observations.
>
> Brent
>

Obviously; that's what I wrote. Did you even read it? But the same applies 
to Born's rule! 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dc965b36-17d7-4a34-a08b-f9aaefc57743%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The problem with physics

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/20/2019 3:28 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 3:00:35 PM UTC-7, scerir wrote:


Nevertheless, the SWE does not give a probability without some
further assumptions. Why do you think that MWI advocates spend so
much time an effort trying to derive the Born rule? You cannot
get probabilities from the Schroedinger equation without some
additional assumptions.

Bruce


In his Nobel lecture (The statistical interpretation of quantum
mechanics, 1954)
Born writes: "Again an idea of Einstein’s gave me the lead. He had
tried to make the duality of particles - light quanta or photons -
and waves comprehensible by interpreting the square of the optical
wave amplitudes as probability density for the occurrence of
photons. This concept could at once be carried over to the
psi-function: |psi|^2 ought to represent the probability density
for electrons (or other particles). It was easy to assert this,
but how could it be proved?"


How could any of the postulates of QM "be proved"? All we can do is 
make assumptions and determine if they give good predictions. (Have 
you seen my email?) AG


Of course it was "proven" in the empirical sense of being used to 
successfully predict observations.


Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e1318d94-d2b0-0257-958b-2192d8dabd2f%40verizon.net.

Re: The problem with physics

[Bruce Kellett]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 10:37 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 4:53 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> >>I have no idea what the difference is between "text-book" realism and
>>> "Eisteinian realism" is and I don't think you do either, in physics there
>>> is just realism and nonrealism. And you don't give any definition of
>>> "Realism" at all, you just say I'm wrong; but Wikipedia agrees with my
>>> definition of the word, it says:
>>> "*R**ealism is "counterfactual definiteness", the idea that it is
>>> possible to meaningfully describe as definite the result of a measurement
>>> which, in fact, has not been performed (i.e. the ability to assume the
>>> existence of objects, and assign values to their properties, even when they
>>> have not been measured)*.
>>>
>>
>> *> Gosh, you must have had to troll through an awful lot of stuff on
>> Wikipedia to find that particular definition of realism.*
>>
>
> Mr. Kellett, I am not a troll, if I didn't believe that what I'm saying
> has a better than even chance of turning out to be right I would not be
> saying it.
>
> * > I suggest you look for "scientific realism" instead of that
>> self-serving nonsense.*
>>
>
> You're talking about two different things that deal with different
> subjects. I'm talking about counterfactual definiteness and the subject of
> that is nature, it either has counterfactual definiteness or it doesn't and
> only experiment can determine which:
>
> "*In quantum mechanics, counterfactual definiteness (CFD) is the ability
> to speak "meaningfully" of the definiteness of the results of measurements
> that have not been performed (i.e., the ability to assume the existence of
> objects, and properties of objects, even when they have not been measured).
> The term "counterfactual definiteness" is used in discussions of physics
> calculations, especially those related to the phenomenon called quantum
> entanglement and those related to the Bell inequalities*."
>

The trouble is that this emphasis on counterfactual definiteness is
peculiar to a particular approach to Bell's theorem. Bell did not assume
counterfactual definiteness, and counterfactual definiteness is a
characteristic of classical mechanics -- it has never been assumed as part
of quantum theory. In fact, quantum theory explicitly rejects
counterfactual definiteness as defined above.

Counterfactual definiteness
> 
>
> But the subject of scientific realism is not the nature of the universe
> but the nature of human theories:
>
> *" Scientific realism is a positive epistemic attitude toward the content
> of our best theories and models, recommending belief in both observable and
> unobservable aspects of the world described by the sciences.*"
>

Sure, but whether or not the many-worlds theory explicitly embraces the
realism of the wave function as a description of the actual content of the
universe is what this discussion was about. It is not about classical
mechanics, or about counterfactual definiteness.

> *Scientific realism
> *
>
>  > *Insults are often the only possible response to trolling behaviour.*
>
>
> Mr. Kellett, did it ever occur to you that somebody who disagrees with you
> might actually believe in what they say just as strongly as you do?
>

You ignore the content of the best thought on the subject, and consistently
misrepresent the meanings of common terms as referring to your own
self-serving definitions. By not actually listening to, and responding to,
what the other person is saying, you are engaging in trolling behaviour --
no matter what you actually believe. Your responses appear to be designed
merely to annoy and provoke strong rejoinders. That is not the way of
academic discussion.

Bruce

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQM2dcuELw_7T6A-22CRJpidvhVhmEiW1Tw%3Dya3kwM91A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The problem with physics

[John Clark]

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 4:53 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

>>I have no idea what the difference is between "text-book" realism and
>> "Eisteinian realism" is and I don't think you do either, in physics there
>> is just realism and nonrealism. And you don't give any definition of
>> "Realism" at all, you just say I'm wrong; but Wikipedia agrees with my
>> definition of the word, it says:
>> "*R**ealism is "counterfactual definiteness", the idea that it is
>> possible to meaningfully describe as definite the result of a measurement
>> which, in fact, has not been performed (i.e. the ability to assume the
>> existence of objects, and assign values to their properties, even when they
>> have not been measured)*.
>>
>
> *> Gosh, you must have had to troll through an awful lot of stuff on
> Wikipedia to find that particular definition of realism.*
>

Mr. Kellett, I am not a troll, if I didn't believe that what I'm saying has
a better than even chance of turning out to be right I would not be saying
it.

* > I suggest you look for "scientific realism" instead of that
> self-serving nonsense.*
>

You're talking about two different things that deal with different
subjects. I'm talking about counterfactual definiteness and the subject of
that is nature, it either has counterfactual definiteness or it doesn't and
only experiment can determine which:

"*In quantum mechanics, counterfactual definiteness (CFD) is the ability to
speak "meaningfully" of the definiteness of the results of measurements
that have not been performed (i.e., the ability to assume the existence of
objects, and properties of objects, even when they have not been measured).
The term "counterfactual definiteness" is used in discussions of physics
calculations, especially those related to the phenomenon called quantum
entanglement and those related to the Bell inequalities*."

Counterfactual definiteness


But the subject of scientific realism is not the nature of the universe but
the nature of human theories:

*" Scientific realism is a positive epistemic attitude toward the content
of our best theories and models, recommending belief in both observable and
unobservable aspects of the world described by the sciences.*"


*Scientific realism
*

 > *Insults are often the only possible response to trolling behaviour.*


Mr. Kellett, did it ever occur to you that somebody who disagrees with you
might actually believe in what they say just as strongly as you do?

John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1hVSJX9QjaqBsh-DVBq2Roe_0n-kFH4sbpuEB79EBPSQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The problem with physics

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 3:00:35 PM UTC-7, scerir wrote:
>
> Nevertheless, the SWE does not give a probability without some further 
> assumptions. Why do you think that MWI advocates spend so much time an 
> effort trying to derive the Born rule? You cannot get probabilities from 
> the Schroedinger equation without some additional assumptions. 
>
> Bruce 
>
> In his Nobel lecture (The statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics, 
> 1954)
> Born writes: "Again an idea of Einstein’s gave me the lead. He had tried 
> to make the duality of particles - light quanta or photons - and waves 
> comprehensible by interpreting the square of the optical wave amplitudes as 
> probability density for the occurrence of photons. This concept could at 
> once be carried over to the psi-function: |psi|^2 ought to represent the 
> probability density for electrons (or other particles). It was easy to 
> assert this, but how could it be proved?" 
>

How could any of the postulates of QM "be proved"? All we can do is make 
assumptions and determine if they give good predictions. (Have you seen my 
email?) 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5e659c93-1257-4d02-8481-b0dbef3bc7f9%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The problem with physics

[John Clark]

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 2:42 PM 'Brent Meeker'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>>> *The problem is not how to calculate probabilities, it's what do the
> probabilities refer to. *
>
> >> The best betting strategy to follow if you want to win.
>
> * > Right.  *
>

So you now think it's clear what the probabilities refer to. Me too.


> *> They refer to the result of a measurement.  *
>

A measurement that does not change physical laws so only one set of them is
needed.


>
> *> But as you often note in discussing Bruno's Washington/Moscow thought
> experiment, in MWI there is no measurement and there is no result...there
> are only results.*
>

There is no way to make a bet within Bruno's idiotic thought exparament
because there is no way to determine who won and who lost or even nail down
exactly what the bet was about, but the situation is quite different with
the MWI because it's unambiguous what the bet was about and there is no one
around to dispute the outcome.

 John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv21H-u2puTfZxsfYUP1nBG426ACWcikQy%3DVDOuF9Agiww%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The problem with physics

['scerir' via Everything List]

> Nevertheless, the SWE does not give a probability without some further 
> assumptions. Why do you think that MWI advocates spend so much time an effort 
> trying to derive the Born rule? You cannot get probabilities from the 
> Schroedinger equation without some additional assumptions.
> 
> Bruce
> 

In his Nobel lecture (The statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics, 1954)
Born writes: "Again an idea of Einstein’s gave me the lead. He had tried to 
make the duality of particles - light quanta or photons - and waves 
comprehensible by interpreting the square of the optical wave amplitudes as 
probability density for the occurrence of photons. This concept could at once 
be carried over to the psi-function: |psi|^2 ought to represent the probability 
density for electrons (or other particles). It was easy to assert this, but how 
could it be proved?"

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/732462535.1203929.1574287233690%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: The problem with physics

[Bruce Kellett]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:52 AM John Clark  wrote:

>
> I have no idea what the difference is between "text-book" realism and
> "Eisteinian realism" is and I don't think you do either, in physics there
> is just realism and nonrealism. And you don't give any definition of
> "Realism" at all, you just say I'm wrong; but Wikipedia agrees with my
> definition of the word, it says:
>
> "*R**ealism is "counterfactual definiteness", the idea that it is
> possible to meaningfully describe as definite the result of a measurement
> which, in fact, has not been performed (i.e. the ability to assume the
> existence of objects, and assign values to their properties, even when they
> have not been measured)*.
>

Gosh, you must have had to troll through an awful lot of stuff on Wikipedia
to find that particular definition of realism. I suggest you look for
"scientific realism" instead of that self-serving nonsense.

Scientific realism involves the two basic positions. First, it is a set of
claims about the features of an ideal scientific theory; an ideal theory is
the sort of theory science aims to produce. Second, it is the commitment
that science will eventually produce theories very much like an ideal
theory and that science has done pretty well thus far in some domains. It
is important to note that one might be a scientific realist regarding some
sciences while not being a realist regarding others.

According to scientific realism, an ideal scientific theory has the
following features:

   - The claims the theory makes are either true or false, depending on
   whether the entities talked about by the theory exist and are correctly
   described by the theory. This is the semantic
    commitment of scientific
   realism.
   - The entities described by the scientific theory exist objectively and
   mind-independently. This is the metaphysical
    commitment of scientific
   realism.
   - There are reasons to believe some significant portion of what the
   theory says. This is the  epistemological
    commitment.

Combining the first and the second claim entails
 that an ideal
scientific theory says definite things about genuinely existing entities.
The third claim says that we have reasons to believe that many scientific
claims about these entities are true, but not all.

Bruce
PS. Insults are often the only possible response to trolling behaviour.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSGGLeJt3pC2zfSpNqhLXza_3VixfYKwMz%2BQZONW_j3jA%40mail.gmail.com.

Computatonal Matter

[Philip Thrift]

Looks like good stuff.


https://books.google.com/books/about/Computational_Matter.html?id=Qu1lDwAAQBAJ
(Springer, 2018)

@philipthrift

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2743e808-600b-42d3-963c-b28a78a33a1d%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The problem with physics

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/20/2019 11:49 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 12:59:32 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 11/19/2019 11:41 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 11/19/2019 1:43 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:


 A diffraction pattern emerges in video recordings of
single-photon double-slit experiments whether anyone sees
the video or not. what changes is the image on the video
frame-by-frame. If you take a video of a an arrow shot from
a bow, it follows a parabolic curve, and what changes is its
position frame-by-frame.


So when your path integral formulation predicts various
probabilities for position of photon absorptions by the video
camera nothing has changed when positions are actualized in
the recording.  All the same probabilities obtain.  Which is
the MWI view.

Brent




In the cases of *Quantum Measure Theory* (Rafael Sorkin), *Real
Path Quantum Theory* (Adrain Kent), or -- in another type of
formulation -- *Cellular Automaton Interpretation* [of Quantum
Mechanics] (Gerard 't Hooft), I don't see what "change" means in
your terms.


Those methods assign probabilities (measures) to specific possible
outcomes (measurements).  When one is observed, it is used as an
initial condition for further predictions.  If it's not observed
then further predictions are conditioned on all the possible
outcomes.  That's a change.

Brent



Except in the theories -- QMT, RPQT -- themselves, nothing is observed 
(or needs to be observed), because /there are no observers/ 
("alternative to the textbook formalism of state-vectors and external 
*observers*").t




And that's why they fail to predict observations.  But they do assign 
probabilities to specific events and they condition those on prior 
events or not.


Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d8515f11-26d3-5407-e709-4c35584f4a45%40verizon.net.

Re: The problem with physics

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 12:59:32 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/19/2019 11:41 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/19/2019 1:43 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>  A diffraction pattern emerges in video recordings of single-photon 
>> double-slit experiments whether anyone sees the video or not. what changes 
>> is the image on the video frame-by-frame. If you take a video of a an arrow 
>> shot from a bow, it follows a parabolic curve, and what changes is its 
>> position frame-by-frame.
>>
>>
>> So when your path integral formulation predicts various probabilities for 
>> position of photon absorptions by the video camera nothing has changed when 
>> positions are actualized in the recording.  All the same probabilities 
>> obtain.  Which is the MWI view.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
>
> In the cases of *Quantum Measure Theory* (Rafael Sorkin), *Real Path 
> Quantum Theory* (Adrain Kent), or -- in another type of formulation -- 
> *Cellular 
> Automaton Interpretation* [of Quantum Mechanics] (Gerard 't Hooft), I 
> don't see what "change" means in your terms.
>
>
> Those methods assign probabilities (measures) to specific possible 
> outcomes (measurements).  When one is observed, it is used as an initial 
> condition for further predictions.  If it's not observed then further 
> predictions are conditioned on all the possible outcomes.  That's a change.
>
> Brent
>


Except in the theories -- QMT, RPQT -- themselves, nothing is observed (or 
needs to be observed), because *there are no observers* ("alternative to 
the textbook formalism of state-vectors and external *observers*").

@philipthrift

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/eba86d43-91e5-49c5-9bff-8263f7975644%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The problem with physics

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/20/2019 2:43 AM, John Clark wrote:


On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 5:14 PM 'Brent Meeker'  
> wrote:


> /The problem is not how to calculate probabilities, it's what do
the probabilities refer to. /


The best betting strategy to follow if you want to win.


Right.  They refer to the result of a measurement.  But as you often 
note in discussing Bruno's Washington/Moscow thought experiment, in MWI 
there is no measurement and there is no result...there are only results.


Brent



John K Clark





--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1JoxqxxjocBQiTOWEnDQCCgRNtW3-oojCvfdghojYqnQ%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e64060b0-a62c-6833-e804-d40494c511da%40verizon.net.

Re: The problem with physics

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 11/19/2019 11:41 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 11/19/2019 1:43 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:


 A diffraction pattern emerges in video recordings of
single-photon double-slit experiments whether anyone sees the
video or not. what changes is the image on the video
frame-by-frame. If you take a video of a an arrow shot from a
bow, it follows a parabolic curve, and what changes is its
position frame-by-frame.


So when your path integral formulation predicts various
probabilities for position of photon absorptions by the video
camera nothing has changed when positions are actualized in the
recording.  All the same probabilities obtain.  Which is the MWI view.

Brent




In the cases of *Quantum Measure Theory* (Rafael Sorkin), *Real Path 
Quantum Theory* (Adrain Kent), or -- in another type of formulation -- 
*Cellular Automaton Interpretation* [of Quantum Mechanics] (Gerard 't 
Hooft), I don't see what "change" means in your terms.


Those methods assign probabilities (measures) to specific possible 
outcomes (measurements).  When one is observed, it is used as an initial 
condition for further predictions.  If it's not observed then further 
predictions are conditioned on all the possible outcomes.  That's a change.


Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d1389e48-34df-79a5-d904-52fb3ccf530d%40verizon.net.

Re: The problem with physics

[John Clark]

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 12:50 AM Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

>>> I thought one of the attractions of the many worlds theory was that it
>>> was realistic -- in the sense that the wave function really exists a a
>>> physical object,
>>>
>>
>> >> I don't know where in the world you got that idea. Even probability
>> is pretty abstract but you don't even get that until you take the square of
>> the absolute value of the wave function, which contains imaginary numbers
>> by the way. How much more different from a physical object do you want?
>>
>
> > *I thought that you had read Sean Carroll's recent book and might,
> therefore, have known better than this. On page 32, Carroll writes "First,
> we take the wave function seriously as a direct representation of reality,
> not just a book-keeping device to help us organize our knowledge. We treat
> it as ontological, not epistemic." That is what is meant by wave function
> realism.*
>

All physicists agree that probabilities and imaginary numbers can help
represent physical objects and the same is true of the wave function, but
no physicist thinks of imaginary numbers or wave functions or probability
as physical objects as you claim. And yes, Carroll treats the wave function
as ontological not epistemic, and yes, to Carroll the wave function is more
that just a bookkeeping device to keep track of what we know and what we
don't know, and yes Carroll gives another correct definition of realism.
Many Worlds theory does NOT say a photon just before it hits a polarizing
filter is in the up or the down polarization and we just don't know which
one, it says it really is in both states, it says a particle is NOT always
in one and only one definite state, it says the world is not realistic.

>> A theory is realistic if it says a particle is in one and only one
>> definite state both before and after an interaction even if it has not been
>> observed. Many Worlds is about as far from that as you can get.
>>
>
> *> That is not wave function realism as used in many worlds. That version
> of realism is not even applicable to ordinary "text-book" quantum
> mechanics; it is not even Eisteinian realism.*
>

I have no idea what the difference is between "text-book" realism and
"Eisteinian realism" is and I don't think you do either, in physics there
is just realism and nonrealism. And you don't give any definition of
"Realism" at all, you just say I'm wrong; but Wikipedia agrees with my
definition of the word, it says:

"*R**ealism is "counterfactual definiteness", the idea that it is possible
to meaningfully describe as definite the result of a measurement which, in
fact, has not been performed (i.e. the ability to assume the existence of
objects, and assign values to their properties, even when they have not
been measured)*.

*> I know that you like to play dumb, John, and act the troll. *


So this is your strategy now, if you can't win with the facts or with logic
maybe you can win a battle of the insults.

 John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2kmC7Pf-Nt_%3DFXrWaNcJ6Wwfd9k6hpmkQNdjDYnBhaWw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The problem with physics

[John Clark]

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 5:14 PM 'Brent Meeker'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> *The problem is not how to calculate probabilities, it's what do the
> probabilities refer to. *


The best betting strategy to follow if you want to win.

John K Clark





>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1JoxqxxjocBQiTOWEnDQCCgRNtW3-oojCvfdghojYqnQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Quantum Cognition, Neural Oscillators, and Negative Probabilities

[Philip Thrift]

*Quantum Cognition, Neural Oscillators, and Negative Probabilities*
Jose Acacio de Barros, Gary Oas
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Quantum-Cognition%2C-Neural-Oscillators%2C-and-Negative-Barros-Oas/0fd69bc6e1e5f276ed70cb2a72c33364ba543483

This review paper has three main goals. First, to discuss a contextual 
neurophysiologically plausible model of neural oscillators that reproduces 
some of the features of quantum cognition. Second, to show that such a 
model predicts contextual situations where quantum cognition is inadequate. 
Third, to present an extended probability theory that not only can describe 
situations that are beyond quantum probability, but also provides an 
advantage in terms of contextual decision-making. 


@philipthrift

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9b7c8218-5290-4627-bf46-e592ebb4f23d%40googlegroups.com.