subject:"Re\: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum."

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-16 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 15 Oct 2019, at 19:37, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 7:46:07 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>>  But never mind, especially that with Mechanism, there are no world at all, 
>> just “numbers”, together with + and *.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> That's certainly better than MWI.

I think so, especially that we get both the wave and the collapse has personal 
(epistemic, doxastic) appearance. We just need to believe that proposition like 
(3 divides 9 ) are true, or false.

Bruno


> 
> @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/c83da3e7-9b86-4a2d-85f4-38fc8c8ec747%40googlegroups.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/EDEF01E7-CA07-455B-957E-3418EF07E66F%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-16 Thread Bruno Marchal



> On 15 Oct 2019, at 18:57, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/15/2019 5:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
 Imagine the WM-duplication, or better here, a guy who is duplicated in two 
 virtual rooms, numerically identical, except for a close virtual envelop 
 with a paper containing 1 (written on a paper)  in room 1 and 2 in room 2.
 
 If the person there does not open the envelop, we can fuse them again, and 
 nothing special happened. It one consciousness flux, like if no 
 duplication occurred.
 But if the guy open the envelop and read what is on the paper, then the 
 consciousness flux differentiates.
>>> 
>>> Which is the QBist interpretation of QM.
>> 
>> Cool!
>> 
>> If you have a best link on QBism, I might be interested (but I might ask 
>> again later, as I have not much time to do research right now).
> 
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.4211.pdf
> 
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.2661.pdf

Thank you. Very interesting from a quick look perspective. It is still many 
histories, but they become even closer to what we expect from mechanism, and 
physics becomes rather clearly a first person (plural) constructs.

Might say more later. The only problem is that I am a bit skeptical of the use 
of Bayes theorem in this context, but I might be wrong on this.

Bruno




> 
> 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/debd9850-001c-c07a-708a-ceb3c20b12ec%40verizon.net.

-- 
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/63F5E802-2DB7-4A92-9126-68E2D39BC4A2%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-15 Thread Philip Thrift



On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 7:46:07 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>  But never mind, especially that with Mechanism, there are no world at 
> all, just “numbers”, together with + and *.
>
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
That's certainly better than MWI.

@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/c83da3e7-9b86-4a2d-85f4-38fc8c8ec747%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-15 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List





On 10/15/2019 5:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


Imagine the WM-duplication, or better here, a guy who is duplicated 
in two virtual rooms, numerically identical, except for a close 
virtual envelop with a paper containing 1 (written on a paper)  in 
room 1 and 2 in room 2.


If the person there does not open the envelop, we can fuse them 
again, and nothing special happened. It one consciousness flux, like 
if no duplication occurred.
But if the guy open the envelop and read what is on the paper, then 
the consciousness flux differentiates.


Which is the QBist interpretation of QM.


Cool!

If you have a best link on QBism, I might be interested (but I might 
ask again later, as I have not much time to do research right now).


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.4211.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.2661.pdf

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/debd9850-001c-c07a-708a-ceb3c20b12ec%40verizon.net.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-15 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 14 Oct 2019, at 21:46, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/14/2019 11:42 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 1:28:26 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> Which is the QBist interpretation of QM.   [ Re: Gödel-Löb-Solovay 
>> “theology”]
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> MWI is QB on steroids.
> 
> I'd say it's MWI plus humility.

I’d say the contrary. Usually, to accept more people and histories seems to me 
more humble than the belief in own own uniqueness …. But never mind, especially 
that with Mechanism, there are no world at all, just “numbers”, together with + 
and *.

Bruno



> 
> 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/cd678f59-3fb0-7698-a4e8-395bda3c0f39%40verizon.net
>  
> .

-- 
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/80AF95A5-0A82-4B06-9D70-8CC7EC26B1A1%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-15 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 14 Oct 2019, at 20:28, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/14/2019 7:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 11 Oct 2019, at 01:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 10/6/2019 3:03 AM, smitra wrote:
> 
> And with finite information in the universe there is not distinction 
> between recurrences and hence there are no recurrences. 
> 
 
 Yes, but there will also be imperfect recurrences where the difference 
 will go unnoticed for an observer until a measurement is made. You can 
 then have an effective splitting in single world collapse theories. and 
 each outcome will have a certain probability that corresponds to the 
 relative frequency at which different outcomes will occur in a large time 
 period.
>>> 
>>> What does "effective splitting in single world collapse" mean?  Sounds like 
>>> classical probability due to ignorance...except that's NOT splitting.
>> 
>> 
>> It is differentiating.
>> 
>> Imagine the WM-duplication, or better here, a guy who is duplicated in two 
>> virtual rooms, numerically identical, except for a close virtual envelop 
>> with a paper containing 1 (written on a paper)  in room 1 and 2 in room 2.
>> 
>> If the person there does not open the envelop, we can fuse them again, and 
>> nothing special happened. It one consciousness flux, like if no duplication 
>> occurred. 
>> But if the guy open the envelop and read what is on the paper, then the 
>> consciousness flux differentiates.
> 
> Which is the QBist interpretation of QM.

Cool!

If you have a best link on QBism, I might be interested (but I might ask again 
later, as I have not much time to do research right now).

Bruno


> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> For the measure on the histories, the rule is graphically sum up by the 
>> diagram:
>> 
>>   Y   =II
>> 
>> The differentiation in the future separate the past, and it allows the 
>> elimination of the splitting. The real diagram are provided by the Kripke 
>> semantic, or other semantic for the modal logic of self-reference (and its 
>> intensional variants), where we should get something like the Feynman 
>> diagrams for the histories and sub-histories.
>> 
>> Like you say: it is classical probabilities, from a relative first person 
>> perspective, localised in a mathematically sophisticated structure. The 
>> many-worlds of the universal wave seems to confirm the many-computations of 
>> elementary arithmetic. This one has the Gödel-Löb-Solovay “theology” capable 
>> of distinguishing quanta (knowable, observable and sharable) from qualia 
>> (knowable, observable, but not sharable).
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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/98111518-61e8-771e-b1ea-40f2a58b1735%40verizon.net
>>>  
>>> .
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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/012B07A5-0158-4B09-AACF-A144D102B861%40ulb.ac.be
>>  
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/16c12dfe-7b81-4447-90d4-6f8617048e7c%40verizon.net
>  
> .

-- 
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/082E0A0F-81EB-4AF9-9621-17441771F4C8%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-15 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 14 Oct 2019, at 20:06, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 9:20:28 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 11 Oct 2019, at 01:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/6/2019 3:03 AM, smitra wrote:
 
 And with finite information in the universe there is not distinction 
 between recurrences and hence there are no recurrences. 
 
>>> 
>>> Yes, but there will also be imperfect recurrences where the difference will 
>>> go unnoticed for an observer until a measurement is made. You can then have 
>>> an effective splitting in single world collapse theories. and each outcome 
>>> will have a certain probability that corresponds to the relative frequency 
>>> at which different outcomes will occur in a large time period.
>> 
>> What does "effective splitting in single world collapse" mean?  Sounds like 
>> classical probability due to ignorance...except that's NOT splitting.
> 
> 
> It is differentiating.
> 
> Imagine the WM-duplication, or better here, a guy who is duplicated in two 
> virtual rooms, numerically identical, except for a close virtual envelop with 
> a paper containing 1 (written on a paper)  in room 1 and 2 in room 2.
> 
> If the person there does not open the envelop, we can fuse them again, and 
> nothing special happened. It one consciousness flux, like if no duplication 
> occurred. 
> But if the guy open the envelop and read what is on the paper, then the 
> consciousness flux differentiates.
> 
> For the measure on the histories, the rule is graphically sum up by the 
> diagram:
> 
>   Y   =II
> 
> The differentiation in the future separate the past, and it allows the 
> elimination of the splitting. The real diagram are provided by the Kripke 
> semantic, or other semantic for the modal logic of self-reference (and its 
> intensional variants), where we should get something like the Feynman 
> diagrams for the histories and sub-histories.
> 
> Like you say: it is classical probabilities, from a relative first person 
> perspective, localised in a mathematically sophisticated structure. The 
> many-worlds of the universal wave seems to confirm the many-computations of 
> elementary arithmetic. This one has the Gödel-Löb-Solovay “theology” capable 
> of distinguishing quanta (knowable, observable and sharable) from qualia 
> (knowable, observable, but not sharable).
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> Many Words is Gödel-Löb-Solovay “theology.
> 
> Of course!

If this is not sarcastic: no. That is not obvious. But it is explained in all 
details in my papers, but you might need to study some good book in logic (like 
Mendelson’s one already referred to).

Bruno



> 
> @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/1bf3d29c-273f-46f6-88eb-1e82d1d0e82c%40googlegroups.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/5F7AE68A-4669-4918-BBC7-8720BCE6DBB9%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-14 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 10/14/2019 11:42 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 1:28:26 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:


Which is the QBist interpretation of QM.   [ Re: Gödel-Löb-Solovay
“theology”]

Brent



MWI is QB on steroids.


I'd say it's MWI plus humility.

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/cd678f59-3fb0-7698-a4e8-395bda3c0f39%40verizon.net.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-14 Thread Philip Thrift



On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 1:28:26 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
> Which is the QBist interpretation of QM.   [ Re: Gödel-Löb-Solovay 
> “theology”]
>
> Brent
>
>
>
MWI is QB on steroids.

@philpthrift 

-- 
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/ddbeb673-cc04-43ad-8d43-58e3ff97e91c%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-14 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/14/2019 7:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 11 Oct 2019, at 01:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> wrote:

On 10/6/2019 3:03 AM, smitra wrote:

And with finite information in the universe there is not distinction
between recurrences and hence there are no recurrences.

Yes, but there will also be imperfect recurrences where the
difference will go unnoticed for an observer until a measurement is
made. You can then have an effective splitting in single world
collapse theories. and each outcome will have a certain probability
that corresponds to the relative frequency at which different
outcomes will occur in a large time period.

What does "effective splitting in single world collapse" mean?
Sounds like classical probability due to ignorance...except that's
NOT splitting.

It is differentiating.

Imagine the WM-duplication, or better here, a guy who is duplicated in
two virtual rooms, numerically identical, except for a close virtual
envelop with a paper containing 1 (written on a paper) in room 1 and
2 in room 2.

If the person there does not open the envelop, we can fuse them again,
and nothing special happened. It one consciousness flux, like if no
duplication occurred.
But if the guy open the envelop and read what is on the paper, then
the consciousness flux differentiates.

Which is the QBist interpretation of QM.

Brent

For the measure on the histories, the rule is graphically sum up by
the diagram:

Y = II

The differentiation in the future separate the past, and it allows the
elimination of the splitting. The real diagram are provided by the
Kripke semantic, or other semantic for the modal logic of
self-reference (and its intensional variants), where we should get
something like the Feynman diagrams for the histories and sub-histories.

Like you say: it is classical probabilities, from a relative first
person perspective, localised in a mathematically sophisticated
structure. The many-worlds of the universal wave seems to confirm the
many-computations of elementary arithmetic. This one has the
Gödel-Löb-Solovay “theology” capable of distinguishing quanta
(knowable, observable and sharable) from qualia (knowable, observable,
but not sharable).

Bruno

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/98111518-61e8-771e-b1ea-40f2a58b1735%40verizon.net
.

--
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/012B07A5-0158-4B09-AACF-A144D102B861%40ulb.ac.be
.

--
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/16c12dfe-7b81-4447-90d4-6f8617048e7c%40verizon.net.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-14 Thread Philip Thrift



On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 9:20:28 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 11 Oct 2019, at 01:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/6/2019 3:03 AM, smitra wrote:
>
>
> And with finite information in the universe there is not distinction 
> between recurrences and hence there are no recurrences. 
>
>
> Yes, but there will also be imperfect recurrences where the difference 
> will go unnoticed for an observer until a measurement is made. You can then 
> have an effective splitting in single world collapse theories. and each 
> outcome will have a certain probability that corresponds to the relative 
> frequency at which different outcomes will occur in a large time period. 
>
>
> What does "effective splitting in single world collapse" mean?  Sounds 
> like classical probability due to ignorance...except that's NOT splitting.
>
>
>
> It is differentiating.
>
> Imagine the WM-duplication, or better here, a guy who is duplicated in two 
> virtual rooms, numerically identical, except for a close virtual envelop 
> with a paper containing 1 (written on a paper)  in room 1 and 2 in room 2.
>
> If the person there does not open the envelop, we can fuse them again, and 
> nothing special happened. It one consciousness flux, like if no duplication 
> occurred. 
> But if the guy open the envelop and read what is on the paper, then the 
> consciousness flux differentiates.
>
> For the measure on the histories, the rule is graphically sum up by the 
> diagram:
>
>   Y   =II
>
> The differentiation in the future separate the past, and it allows the 
> elimination of the splitting. The real diagram are provided by the Kripke 
> semantic, or other semantic for the modal logic of self-reference (and its 
> intensional variants), where we should get something like the Feynman 
> diagrams for the histories and sub-histories.
>
> Like you say: it is classical probabilities, from a relative first person 
> perspective, localised in a mathematically sophisticated structure. The 
> many-worlds of the universal wave seems to confirm the many-computations of 
> elementary arithmetic. This one has the Gödel-Löb-Solovay “theology” 
> capable of distinguishing quanta (knowable, observable and sharable) from 
> qualia (knowable, observable, but not sharable).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
Many Words is Gödel-Löb-Solovay “theology.

Of course!

@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/1bf3d29c-273f-46f6-88eb-1e82d1d0e82c%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-14 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 11 Oct 2019, at 01:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/6/2019 3:03 AM, smitra wrote:
>>> 
>>> And with finite information in the universe there is not distinction 
>>> between recurrences and hence there are no recurrences. 
>>> 
>> 
>> Yes, but there will also be imperfect recurrences where the difference will 
>> go unnoticed for an observer until a measurement is made. You can then have 
>> an effective splitting in single world collapse theories. and each outcome 
>> will have a certain probability that corresponds to the relative frequency 
>> at which different outcomes will occur in a large time period.
> 
> What does "effective splitting in single world collapse" mean?  Sounds like 
> classical probability due to ignorance...except that's NOT splitting.

It is differentiating.

Imagine the WM-duplication, or better here, a guy who is duplicated in two 
virtual rooms, numerically identical, except for a close virtual envelop with a 
paper containing 1 (written on a paper)  in room 1 and 2 in room 2.

If the person there does not open the envelop, we can fuse them again, and 
nothing special happened. It one consciousness flux, like if no duplication 
occurred. 
But if the guy open the envelop and read what is on the paper, then the 
consciousness flux differentiates.

For the measure on the histories, the rule is graphically sum up by the diagram:

  Y   =II

The differentiation in the future separate the past, and it allows the 
elimination of the splitting. The real diagram are provided by the Kripke 
semantic, or other semantic for the modal logic of self-reference (and its 
intensional variants), where we should get something like the Feynman diagrams 
for the histories and sub-histories.

Like you say: it is classical probabilities, from a relative first person 
perspective, localised in a mathematically sophisticated structure. The 
many-worlds of the universal wave seems to confirm the many-computations of 
elementary arithmetic. This one has the Gödel-Löb-Solovay “theology” capable of 
distinguishing quanta (knowable, observable and sharable) from qualia 
(knowable, observable, but not sharable).

Bruno

> 
> 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/98111518-61e8-771e-b1ea-40f2a58b1735%40verizon.net
>  
> .

-- 
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/012B07A5-0158-4B09-AACF-A144D102B861%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-10 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 10/6/2019 3:03 AM, smitra wrote:


And with finite information in the universe there is not distinction
between recurrences and hence there are no recurrences.



Yes, but there will also be imperfect recurrences where the difference 
will go unnoticed for an observer until a measurement is made. You can 
then have an effective splitting in single world collapse theories. 
and each outcome will have a certain probability that corresponds to 
the relative frequency at which different outcomes will occur in a 
large time period. 


What does "effective splitting in single world collapse" mean? Sounds 
like classical probability due to ignorance...except that's NOT splitting.


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/98111518-61e8-771e-b1ea-40f2a58b1735%40verizon.net.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-08 Thread smitra

On 04-10-2019 23:36, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:

On 10/4/2019 12:03 AM, smitra wrote:

On 04-10-2019 08:20, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 6:56:59 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:12 AM Philip Thrift
wrote:

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:51:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell
wrote:

This really is a well enough explained question.

Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the
total energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with the
probability of that branch. This works the way it always works in
quantum mechanics. There is nothing new going on here, nothing
controversial, and nothing interesting.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html?showComment=1569889923590#c1373154727748966620

[1]

The trouble I see with the explanation Sabine gives, which is
probably

the most common response to this question, is that it dilutes the
energy in each branch according to the Born weight. Given that there
a
zillions of branchings per second throughout the visible universe,
the
energy rapidly is weighted away to zero in all branches. This does
not

make much sense. Besides, that is not what one does in ordinary
quantum mechanics -- I have no idea what Sabine is referring to here.

The only solution for MWI, it seems to me, is that the energy is
simply conserved in each branch, and not conserved over branching
interactions. How would you ever test this, anyway? Block universe
ideas do not actually help here. And appeals to energy non
conservation in non-stationary universes are beside the point --
Quantum mechanics is not GR.

Bruce

Sabine Hossenfelder's book "Lost in Math" has this title in the
recently published Italian version:

"Deluded by Math"

Maybe "Confused by Math" is another possibility.

Many times she does exactly what she accuses (in her book) others
doing.

Yes, sometimes she gets very sloppy in her thinking and goes with the
conventional arguments rather than thinking things through. But, at
least she does challenge the status quo on many occasions. The
contrary voice is often needed.

Bruce

She is a prophet of a find in two regards:

THE END OF THEORETICAL PHYSICS AS WE KNOW IT

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-end-of-theoretical-physics-as-we-know-it-20180827/
(the transition from conventional mathematics to

programmatic/computing structures)

and the delusion/confusion of today's theoretical physicists with
math, leading a both quantum and cosmological multiple universes.

But her nonsensical probability argument where as worlds branch (then
branch again, and again) the descendant worlds get 1/2 the matter and
energy of their parent, which means we should have 0 right now.

(Now she could argue that one starts with 0 matter and energy from
the

beginning, so it's 0 all the way down.)

And with finite information in the universe there is not distinction
between recurrences and hence there are no recurrences.

Yes, but there will also be imperfect recurrences where the difference
will go unnoticed for an observer until a measurement is made. You can
then have an effective splitting in single world collapse theories. and
each outcome will have a certain probability that corresponds to the
relative frequency at which different outcomes will occur in a large
time period.

Saibal

--
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/9ca431837a0371e766a4035aec13ac05%40zonnet.nl.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-08 Thread smitra

On 04-10-2019 23:09, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:

On 10/3/2019 11:49 PM, smitra wrote:

On 04-10-2019 00:51, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell
wrote:

This really is a well enough explained question.

Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up
the total energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with
the probability of that branch. This works the way it always works
in quantum mechanics. There is nothing new going on here, nothing
controversial, and nothing interesting.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html?showComment=1569889923590#c1373154727748966620
The trouble I see with the explanation Sabine gives, which is
probably

make much sense. Besides, that is not what one does in ordinary
quantum mechanics -- I have no idea what Sabine is referring to here.

But that's what energy conservation is.

Energy conservation is also consistent with block time, so energy
conservation alone does not single out the interpretation of itself as a
physical transfer of energy from one instant to another instant. One can
choose to interpret it like that, but one can for example just as well
assume a multiverse of all time snaps of all possible universes with
different energy contents, the laws of physics are then nothing more
than a mathematical statement that tells you that universe X and
universe Y have the same information content giving a prescription of
how to compute things in Y given the state of X. Nothing is then
actually physically transferred from X to Y.

If you drop this assumption and simply take thew block universe point
of view where all the instances already exist out there, then there is
no problem to begin with.

Do all the branches then exist equally? in which case you've
abandoned energy conservation and now you need to explain why it
appears to be conserved on every branch.

If under a time evolution a state X becomes a superposition of states
Y1, Y2, ..., Yn, then the block time interpretation of that is that Y1,
Y2,., Yn and X are all different universes and that the information
in X can be retrieved not from a single universe Y_i, but it's
distributed over the different universes Y1,...Yn. If all the Y_n have
well defined and equal energies then these energies are equal to that of
state X. The information about the energy in state X is then present in
each state Y_k separately.

Saibal

--
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/a5f7067e5416ed40921b1c46036a7f31%40zonnet.nl.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-08 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 6 Oct 2019, at 10:31, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 1:19:52 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 5 Oct 2019, at 13:08, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 2:21:34 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 4 Oct 2019, at 20:04, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:28:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
 On 4 Oct 2019, at 00:53, Philip Thrift > wrote:
 
 
 The question is about quantum many worlds. Not cosmology.
>>> 
>>> Cosmology assumes the quantum at a cosmological scale, and it is where a 
>>> collapse makes the less sense. Who would observe and be responsible for the 
>>> collapse of the universal wave? Belinfante estimates that the 
>>> Copenhagen-von Neuman formulation of QM requires an external god looking at 
>>> the universe, like materialism requires a god selecting a unique 
>>> computation, but that’s no more doing science.
>>> 
>>> François Englert, who worked in quantum cosmology, was very annoyed by the 
>>> collapse problem, and was relieved that it makes sense to just abandon the 
>>> collapse idea.  The collapse is usually not even defined in any 
>>> intelligible sense, and it introduces a duality incompatible with 
>>> Mechanism, but also with the scientific attitude, I would say.
>>> 
>>> With mechanism, there is only one consciousness which differentiates into 
>>> many 1p histories, and they interfere statistically, notably by allowing a 
>>> 1p plural observable and sharable reality.
>>> 
>>> Why to believe in any “world"? 
>>> 
>>> Bruno
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Applied sciences 
>>> 
>>>   
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_applied_science#Branches_of_applied_science
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> do not need Many Worlds Interpretation (as far as I can see).
>>> 
>>> If there is no reason to use MWI in applied science, there is no reason to 
>>> consider MWI in science at all.
>> 
>> That leads back to instrumentalist metaphysics, which is the same as “shut 
>> up and calculate”. You don’t need any world, not even one, in that case. 
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> It could appear so, but I say it leads to codicalism (between 
>> instrumentalism [strict antirealism] and realism).
> 
> “Codicalism” or even “formalism” necessitates sigma_1 arithmetical realism, 
> which is the only ontology possible when we assume mechanism, but 
> consciousness and matter become phenomenological, and necessitate in 
> principle the whole of the mathematical reality, which is multiple and 
> undefinable (by machines, provably by machine’s too).
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> JD Hamkins - https://twitter.com/jdhamkins 
>  - has expanded the definition of 
> "definable" in mathematics.
> 
> Nothing is settled and written on stone tablets, like The Ten Commandments.

No, but once we fix the theory in which we are reasoning, then we cannot change 
the definition, just to claim something different about reality. 
I have not the time to follow the link, but if you think that his change of the 
definition of “definition” is relevant, please provide more explanation. I use 
the rather simple theory of Tarski, where definable means “expressible” in some 
first order logical formula, or expressible through some objects themselves 
definable in some first order theory (finite our recursively enumerable set of 
first-order formula). I am aware of many generalisation, but they are not 
relevant for my point.

Bruno



> 
> @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/df9674d6-9a21-4651-9be7-b340b7d79273%40googlegroups.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/052DA5D1-A1EE-4BF9-9F3A-914C3FB314E8%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-08 Thread smitra

On 06-10-2019 12:38, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 8:37 PM smitra wrote:

On 04-10-2019 09:10, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:03 PM smitra wrote:

The descendant worlds get the same energy if they have well

defined

energy in which case computing the weighted average to get to the
expectation value is unnecessary. In general the expectation

value

will
need to be computed by this weighted average. To see that this is
not
crazy, suppose that QM is not the ultimate answer that 't Hooft

correct. But it then turns out that 't Hooft's deterministic

models

lead
to a multiverse via the back door due to Poincare recurrence. And
because with finite information in our brains, we cannot locate
ourselves in a particular time period. Then when we do an
experiment, a
splitting can occur in the sense that we now get more precisely
located
across in the different sectors separated by astronomical large
amounts
of time. So, no problem here with the sum of the energy of
(effective)
branches increasing.

Where is all this in the Schrodinger equation?

We should start with listing all possibilities:

1) Schrodinger equation is exactly correct, in which case we have to

accept the MWI.

False.

You can try to invoke Bohm theory as a counterexample, but as David
Deutsch has demonstrated, Bohm theory is just the MWI in disguise.

Saibal

--
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/6c1694e00e3f0c702d60ed930b386c6c%40zonnet.nl.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-06 Thread Philip Thrift



On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 2:55:26 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/6/2019 2:37 AM, smitra wrote: 
> > On 04-10-2019 09:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: 
> >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:03 PM smitra > 
> wrote: 
> >> 
> >>> The descendant worlds get the same energy if they have well defined 
> >>> energy in which case computing the weighted average to get to the 
> >>> expectation value is unnecessary. In general the expectation value 
> >>> will 
> >>> need to be computed by this weighted average. To see that this is 
> >>> not 
> >>> crazy, suppose that QM is not the ultimate answer that 't Hooft is 
> >>> correct. But it then turns out that 't Hooft's deterministic models 
> >>> lead 
> >>> to a multiverse via the back door due to Poincare recurrence. And 
> >>> because with finite information in our brains, we cannot locate 
> >>> ourselves in a particular time period. Then when we do an 
> >>> experiment, a 
> >>> splitting can occur in the sense that we now get more precisely 
> >>> located 
> >>> across in the different sectors separated by astronomical large 
> >>> amounts 
> >>> of time. So, no problem here with the sum of the energy of 
> >>> (effective) 
> >>> branches increasing. 
> >> 
> >> Where is all this in the Schrodinger equation? 
> > 
> > We should start with listing all possibilities: 
> > 
> > 1) Schrodinger equation is exactly correct, in which case we have to 
> > accept the MWI. 
> > 
> > 2) Schrodinger equation is only an approximation. 
> > 
> > Under option 2) we can have single world theories where a real 
> > collapse happens that violates the Schrodinger equation. But it's also 
> > possible that the violation of the Schrodinger equation leading to a 
> > collapse doesn't actually get rid of the Many Worlds part of the MWI. 
> > The way the collapse happens will be different for the copies of an 
> > observer that will exist in a large enough universe (in a spatial or 
> > temporal sense). 
>
> Just as the SE predicts there is no collapse of the WF it also predicts 
> there are no orthogonal worlds.  The appearance of collapse comes from 
> the approximate orthogonality of projections onto the preferred bases.  
> So suppose we just say that when this approximate orthogonality comes 
> close enough to exact, we discard the other subspaces orthogonal to what 
> we've observed.  Those other subspaces effectively don't exist.  The 
> level of "close enough to exact" may have a theoretical basis in the 
> holographic principle and the finite information content available to 
> the accessible universe. 
>
> Brent 
>
>
How does the *Schrödinger equation* predict "no collapse"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_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/30ed7f5c-35e8-4162-b818-05a206aa3708%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-06 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/6/2019 2:37 AM, smitra wrote:

On 04-10-2019 09:10, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:03 PM smitra wrote:

The descendant worlds get the same energy if they have well defined
energy in which case computing the weighted average to get to the
expectation value is unnecessary. In general the expectation value
will
need to be computed by this weighted average. To see that this is
not
crazy, suppose that QM is not the ultimate answer that 't Hooft is
correct. But it then turns out that 't Hooft's deterministic models
lead
to a multiverse via the back door due to Poincare recurrence. And
because with finite information in our brains, we cannot locate
ourselves in a particular time period. Then when we do an
experiment, a
splitting can occur in the sense that we now get more precisely
located
across in the different sectors separated by astronomical large
amounts
of time. So, no problem here with the sum of the energy of
(effective)
branches increasing.

Where is all this in the Schrodinger equation?

We should start with listing all possibilities:

1) Schrodinger equation is exactly correct, in which case we have to
accept the MWI.

2) Schrodinger equation is only an approximation.

Under option 2) we can have single world theories where a real
collapse happens that violates the Schrodinger equation. But it's also
possible that the violation of the Schrodinger equation leading to a
collapse doesn't actually get rid of the Many Worlds part of the MWI.
The way the collapse happens will be different for the copies of an
observer that will exist in a large enough universe (in a spatial or
temporal sense).

Just as the SE predicts there is no collapse of the WF it also predicts
there are no orthogonal worlds. The appearance of collapse comes from
the approximate orthogonality of projections onto the preferred bases.
So suppose we just say that when this approximate orthogonality comes
close enough to exact, we discard the other subspaces orthogonal to what
we've observed. Those other subspaces effectively don't exist. The
level of "close enough to exact" may have a theoretical basis in the
holographic principle and the finite information content available to
the accessible universe.

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/1cf5c5a6-c4e5-818f-ef50-e1adfda1c388%40verizon.net.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-06 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 8:37 PM smitra  wrote:

> On 04-10-2019 09:10, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:03 PM smitra  wrote:
> >
> >> The descendant worlds get the same energy if they have well defined
> >> energy in which case computing the weighted average to get to the
> >> expectation value is unnecessary. In general the expectation value
> >> will
> >> need to be computed by this weighted average. To see that this is
> >> not
> >> crazy, suppose that QM is not the ultimate answer that 't Hooft is
> >> correct. But it then turns out that 't Hooft's deterministic models
> >> lead
> >> to a multiverse via the back door due to Poincare recurrence. And
> >> because with finite information in our brains, we cannot locate
> >> ourselves in a particular time period. Then when we do an
> >> experiment, a
> >> splitting can occur in the sense that we now get more precisely
> >> located
> >> across in the different sectors separated by astronomical large
> >> amounts
> >> of time. So, no problem here with the sum of the energy of
> >> (effective)
> >> branches increasing.
> >
> > Where is all this in the Schrodinger equation?
>
> We should start with listing all possibilities:
>
> 1) Schrodinger equation is exactly correct, in which case we have to
> accept the MWI.
>

False.


> 2) Schrodinger equation is only an approximation.
>

Possible, but irrelevant here. This does not go towards answering the
question that was asked about energy.

Bruce


Under option 2) we can have single world theories where a real collapse
> happens that violates the Schrodinger equation. But it's also possible
> that the violation of the Schrodinger equation leading to a collapse
> doesn't actually get rid of the Many Worlds part of the MWI. The way the
> collapse happens will be different for the copies of an observer that
> will exist in a large enough universe (in a spatial or temporal sense).
>
> Saibal
>

-- 
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/CAFxXSLTUzf%3DPsuDh6NQzniD5as_SxDT9OHkATYEZS2EFdDqkNg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-06 Thread smitra

On 04-10-2019 09:10, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:03 PM smitra wrote:

Where is all this in the Schrodinger equation?

We should start with listing all possibilities:

1) Schrodinger equation is exactly correct, in which case we have to
accept the MWI.

2) Schrodinger equation is only an approximation.

Under option 2) we can have single world theories where a real collapse
happens that violates the Schrodinger equation. But it's also possible
that the violation of the Schrodinger equation leading to a collapse
doesn't actually get rid of the Many Worlds part of the MWI. The way the
collapse happens will be different for the copies of an observer that
will exist in a large enough universe (in a spatial or temporal sense).

Saibal

--
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/CAFxXSLSygYU0w0FY94y7tMR%3DX5BbDhF_R43jQe8MDu6TKoLQHg%40mail.gmail.com
[1].

Links:
--
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSygYU0w0FY94y7tMR%3DX5BbDhF_R43jQe8MDu6TKoLQHg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer

--
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/8feb751e88ef8256229e5d6958c0d894%40zonnet.nl.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-06 Thread Philip Thrift



On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 1:19:52 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 5 Oct 2019, at 13:08, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 2:21:34 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4 Oct 2019, at 20:04, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:28:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4 Oct 2019, at 00:53, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The question is about quantum many worlds. Not cosmology.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cosmology assumes the quantum at a cosmological scale, and it is where a 
>>> collapse makes the less sense. Who would observe and be responsible for the 
>>> collapse of the universal wave? Belinfante estimates that the 
>>> Copenhagen-von Neuman formulation of QM requires an external god looking at 
>>> the universe, like materialism requires a god selecting a unique 
>>> computation, but that’s no more doing science.
>>>
>>> François Englert, who worked in quantum cosmology, was very annoyed by 
>>> the collapse problem, and was relieved that it makes sense to just abandon 
>>> the collapse idea.  The collapse is usually not even defined in any 
>>> intelligible sense, and it introduces a duality incompatible with 
>>> Mechanism, but also with the scientific attitude, I would say.
>>>
>>> With mechanism, there is only one consciousness which differentiates 
>>> into many 1p histories, and they interfere statistically, notably by 
>>> allowing a 1p plural observable and sharable reality.
>>>
>>> Why to believe in any “world"? 
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Applied sciences 
>>
>>   
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_applied_science#Branches_of_applied_science
>>
>> do not need Many Worlds Interpretation (as far as I can see).
>>
>> If there is no reason to use MWI in applied science, there is no reason 
>> to consider MWI in science at all.
>>
>>
>> That leads back to instrumentalist metaphysics, which is the same as 
>> “shut up and calculate”. You don’t need any world, not even one, in that 
>> case. 
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>
>
>
> It could appear so, but I say it leads to codicalism (between 
> instrumentalism [strict antirealism] and realism).
>
>
> “Codicalism” or even “formalism” necessitates sigma_1 arithmetical 
> realism, which is the only ontology possible when we assume mechanism, but 
> consciousness and matter become phenomenological, and necessitate in 
> principle the whole of the mathematical reality, which is multiple and 
> undefinable (by machines, provably by machine’s too).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>  

JD Hamkins - https://twitter.com/jdhamkins 
 - has expanded the definition of 
"definable" in mathematics.

Nothing is settled and written on stone tablets, like The Ten Commandments.

@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/df9674d6-9a21-4651-9be7-b340b7d79273%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-06 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 5 Oct 2019, at 13:08, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 2:21:34 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 4 Oct 2019, at 20:04, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:28:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 4 Oct 2019, at 00:53, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The question is about quantum many worlds. Not cosmology.
>> 
>> Cosmology assumes the quantum at a cosmological scale, and it is where a 
>> collapse makes the less sense. Who would observe and be responsible for the 
>> collapse of the universal wave? Belinfante estimates that the Copenhagen-von 
>> Neuman formulation of QM requires an external god looking at the universe, 
>> like materialism requires a god selecting a unique computation, but that’s 
>> no more doing science.
>> 
>> François Englert, who worked in quantum cosmology, was very annoyed by the 
>> collapse problem, and was relieved that it makes sense to just abandon the 
>> collapse idea.  The collapse is usually not even defined in any intelligible 
>> sense, and it introduces a duality incompatible with Mechanism, but also 
>> with the scientific attitude, I would say.
>> 
>> With mechanism, there is only one consciousness which differentiates into 
>> many 1p histories, and they interfere statistically, notably by allowing a 
>> 1p plural observable and sharable reality.
>> 
>> Why to believe in any “world"? 
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Applied sciences 
>> 
>>   
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_applied_science#Branches_of_applied_science
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> do not need Many Worlds Interpretation (as far as I can see).
>> 
>> If there is no reason to use MWI in applied science, there is no reason to 
>> consider MWI in science at all.
> 
> That leads back to instrumentalist metaphysics, which is the same as “shut up 
> and calculate”. You don’t need any world, not even one, in that case. 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> It could appear so, but I say it leads to codicalism (between instrumentalism 
> [strict antirealism] and realism).

“Codicalism” or even “formalism” necessitates sigma_1 arithmetical realism, 
which is the only ontology possible when we assume mechanism, but consciousness 
and matter become phenomenological, and necessitate in principle the whole of 
the mathematical reality, which is multiple and undefinable (by machines, 
provably by machine’s too).

Bruno



> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> @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/5005d9cc-5e7f-4e6e-8ef3-188665cadad3%40googlegroups.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/682E3D20-513C-4658-B822-EF1A1FC0B4AD%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-05 Thread Philip Thrift



On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 2:21:34 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 4 Oct 2019, at 20:04, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:28:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4 Oct 2019, at 00:53, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>> The question is about quantum many worlds. Not cosmology.
>>
>>
>> Cosmology assumes the quantum at a cosmological scale, and it is where a 
>> collapse makes the less sense. Who would observe and be responsible for the 
>> collapse of the universal wave? Belinfante estimates that the 
>> Copenhagen-von Neuman formulation of QM requires an external god looking at 
>> the universe, like materialism requires a god selecting a unique 
>> computation, but that’s no more doing science.
>>
>> François Englert, who worked in quantum cosmology, was very annoyed by 
>> the collapse problem, and was relieved that it makes sense to just abandon 
>> the collapse idea.  The collapse is usually not even defined in any 
>> intelligible sense, and it introduces a duality incompatible with 
>> Mechanism, but also with the scientific attitude, I would say.
>>
>> With mechanism, there is only one consciousness which differentiates into 
>> many 1p histories, and they interfere statistically, notably by allowing a 
>> 1p plural observable and sharable reality.
>>
>> Why to believe in any “world"? 
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>
> Applied sciences 
>
>   
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_applied_science#Branches_of_applied_science
>
> do not need Many Worlds Interpretation (as far as I can see).
>
> If there is no reason to use MWI in applied science, there is no reason to 
> consider MWI in science at all.
>
>
> That leads back to instrumentalist metaphysics, which is the same as “shut 
> up and calculate”. You don’t need any world, not even one, in that case. 
>
> Bruno
>



It could appear so, but I say it leads to codicalism (between 
instrumentalism [strict antirealism] and realism).

@philipthrift

@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/5005d9cc-5e7f-4e6e-8ef3-188665cadad3%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-05 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 4 Oct 2019, at 20:04, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:28:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 4 Oct 2019, at 00:53, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> The question is about quantum many worlds. Not cosmology.
> 
> Cosmology assumes the quantum at a cosmological scale, and it is where a 
> collapse makes the less sense. Who would observe and be responsible for the 
> collapse of the universal wave? Belinfante estimates that the Copenhagen-von 
> Neuman formulation of QM requires an external god looking at the universe, 
> like materialism requires a god selecting a unique computation, but that’s no 
> more doing science.
> 
> François Englert, who worked in quantum cosmology, was very annoyed by the 
> collapse problem, and was relieved that it makes sense to just abandon the 
> collapse idea.  The collapse is usually not even defined in any intelligible 
> sense, and it introduces a duality incompatible with Mechanism, but also with 
> the scientific attitude, I would say.
> 
> With mechanism, there is only one consciousness which differentiates into 
> many 1p histories, and they interfere statistically, notably by allowing a 1p 
> plural observable and sharable reality.
> 
> Why to believe in any “world"? 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Applied sciences 
> 
>   
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_applied_science#Branches_of_applied_science
>  
> 
> 
> do not need Many Worlds Interpretation (as far as I can see).
> 
> If there is no reason to use MWI in applied science, there is no reason to 
> consider MWI in science at all.

That leads back to instrumentalist metaphysics, which is the same as “shut up 
and calculate”. You don’t need any world, not even one, in that case. 

Bruno



> 
> @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/e2355243-0e17-4fb3-ae29-6de5d2e5f555%40googlegroups.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/F1AA46A2-5341-4931-8193-AD39A83C0B7A%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-05 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 4 Oct 2019, at 19:45, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:12:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 3 Oct 2019, at 21:07, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/3/2019 10:44 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>>> > Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of 
>>> > occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it 
>>> > can't even contain copies of the experimenter. Totally ridiculous! AG 
>>> 
>>> It it's probability were zero would you still count its energy? 
>>> 
>>> Brent 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> But MWI eliminates probabilities.
>> 
>> That's its problem. But it has to explain the appearance of probabilities.  
> 
> Everett extracts it from the first person indeterminacy is 
> self-superposition, which is the very idea of the MW or Many-histories. In 
> his long text,  He uses Mechanism quasi-explicitly. Its only problem is that 
> he has to extracts the wave from *all* computation, and incompleteness makes 
> this happens. The “worlds” are just computations seen from the self-aware 
> creature supported by those computations.
> 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a good analysis of Everett Many Worlds, which is in stark contrast to 
> a materialist (observer-free) quantum mechanics.
> 
> But Many Worlds is another indication of physicists leaving the material 
> world behind and entering a world of immateriality.

Indeed, and that is a necessity when we assume the mechanist hypothesis in the 
philosophy of mind/cognitive science.

Bruno



> 
> @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/44f02a8e-3b21-4ea5-acb8-5f7b1dfabd5e%40googlegroups.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/9CF0411D-12A3-4627-8D1F-7D9B2B18A26D%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-04 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/4/2019 12:03 AM, smitra wrote:

On 04-10-2019 08:20, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 6:56:59 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:12 AM Philip Thrift
wrote:

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:51:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell
wrote:

This really is a well enough explained question.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html?showComment=1569889923590#c1373154727748966620

[1]

The trouble I see with the explanation Sabine gives, which is probably
the most common response to this question, is that it dilutes the
energy in each branch according to the Born weight. Given that there a
zillions of branchings per second throughout the visible universe, the
energy rapidly is weighted away to zero in all branches. This does not
make much sense. Besides, that is not what one does in ordinary
quantum mechanics -- I have no idea what Sabine is referring to here.

Bruce

Sabine Hossenfelder's book "Lost in Math" has this title in the
recently published Italian version:

"Deluded by Math"

Maybe "Confused by Math" is another possibility.

Many times she does exactly what she accuses (in her book) others
doing.

Bruce

She is a prophet of a find in two regards:

THE END OF THEORETICAL PHYSICS AS WE KNOW IT

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-end-of-theoretical-physics-as-we-know-it-20180827/

(the transition from conventional mathematics to
programmatic/computing structures)

and the delusion/confusion of today's theoretical physicists with
math, leading a both quantum and cosmological multiple universes.

(Now she could argue that one starts with 0 matter and energy from the
beginning, so it's 0 all the way down.)

And with finite information in the universe there is not distinction
between recurrences and hence there are no recurrences.

Brent

Then when we do an experiment, a splitting can occur in the sense that
we now get more precisely located across in the different sectors
separated by astronomical large amounts of time. So, no problem here
with the sum of the energy of (effective) branches increasing.

Saibal

--
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/39328a7d-bc7f-a4cf-b9b2-e07bda5d77be%40verizon.net.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-04 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/3/2019 11:49 PM, smitra wrote:

On 04-10-2019 00:51, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell
wrote:

This really is a well enough explained question.

Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up
the total energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with
the probability of that branch. This works the way it always works
in quantum mechanics. There is nothing new going on here, nothing
controversial, and nothing interesting.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html?showComment=1569889923590#c1373154727748966620

But that's what energy conservation is.

If you drop this assumption and simply take thew block universe point
of view where all the instances already exist out there, then there is
no problem to begin with.

Do all the branches then exist equally? in which case you've abandoned
energy conservation and now you need to explain why it appears to be
conserved on every branch.

Brent

Saibal

--
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/21e5664a-a42a-1559-c3b8-881d771a7567%40verizon.net.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-04 Thread Philip Thrift



On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:28:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 4 Oct 2019, at 00:53, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
> The question is about quantum many worlds. Not cosmology.
>
>
> Cosmology assumes the quantum at a cosmological scale, and it is where a 
> collapse makes the less sense. Who would observe and be responsible for the 
> collapse of the universal wave? Belinfante estimates that the 
> Copenhagen-von Neuman formulation of QM requires an external god looking at 
> the universe, like materialism requires a god selecting a unique 
> computation, but that’s no more doing science.
>
> François Englert, who worked in quantum cosmology, was very annoyed by the 
> collapse problem, and was relieved that it makes sense to just abandon the 
> collapse idea.  The collapse is usually not even defined in any 
> intelligible sense, and it introduces a duality incompatible with 
> Mechanism, but also with the scientific attitude, I would say.
>
> With mechanism, there is only one consciousness which differentiates into 
> many 1p histories, and they interfere statistically, notably by allowing a 
> 1p plural observable and sharable reality.
>
> Why to believe in any “world"? 
>
> Bruno
>
>
>

Applied sciences 

  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_applied_science#Branches_of_applied_science

do not need Many Worlds Interpretation (as far as I can see).

If there is no reason to use MWI in applied science, there is no reason to 
consider MWI in science at all.

@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/e2355243-0e17-4fb3-ae29-6de5d2e5f555%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-04 Thread Philip Thrift



On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:12:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 3 Oct 2019, at 21:07, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/3/2019 10:44 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>> > Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of 
>> > occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it 
>> > can't even contain copies of the experimenter. Totally ridiculous! AG 
>>
>> It it's probability were zero would you still count its energy? 
>>
>> Brent 
>>
>
>
>
> But MWI eliminates probabilities.
>
>
> That's its problem. But it has to explain the appearance of 
> probabilities.  
>
>
> Everett extracts it from the first person indeterminacy is 
> self-superposition, which is the very idea of the MW or Many-histories. In 
> his long text,  He uses Mechanism quasi-explicitly. Its only problem is 
> that he has to extracts the wave from *all* computation, and incompleteness 
> makes this happens. The “worlds” are just computations seen from the 
> self-aware creature supported by those computations.
>
>
> Bruno
>




That is a good analysis of Everett Many Worlds, which is in stark contrast 
to a materialist (observer-free) quantum mechanics.

But Many Worlds is another indication of physicists leaving the material 
world behind and entering a world of immateriality.

@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/44f02a8e-3b21-4ea5-acb8-5f7b1dfabd5e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-04 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 4 Oct 2019, at 00:53, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> The question is about quantum many worlds. Not cosmology.

Cosmology assumes the quantum at a cosmological scale, and it is where a 
collapse makes the less sense. Who would observe and be responsible for the 
collapse of the universal wave? Belinfante estimates that the Copenhagen-von 
Neuman formulation of QM requires an external god looking at the universe, like 
materialism requires a god selecting a unique computation, but that’s no more 
doing science.

François Englert, who worked in quantum cosmology, was very annoyed by the 
collapse problem, and was relieved that it makes sense to just abandon the 
collapse idea.  The collapse is usually not even defined in any intelligible 
sense, and it introduces a duality incompatible with Mechanism, but also with 
the scientific attitude, I would say.

With mechanism, there is only one consciousness which differentiates into many 
1p histories, and they interfere statistically, notably by allowing a 1p plural 
observable and sharable reality.

Why to believe in any “world"? 

Bruno




> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:22:02 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
> Energy isn't even conserved under conventional cosmological models.  The 
> expansion of space causes a loss of radiation energy, and if vacuum energy is 
> non zero (also an assumed by current models) the Hubble expansion is creating 
> energy.
> 
> Jason
> 
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 2:33 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
> 
> There is no way for the Many Worldists to squirrel out of it.
> 
> Run the code
> 
> Getting started with Qiskit: while exploring the quantum world, let’s play 
> the coin flip game!
> 
> https://medium.com/@esobimpe/getting-started-with-qiskit-while-exploring-the-quantum-world-lets-play-the-coin-flip-game-2319bb293c6a
>  
> 
> 
> with a loop of 100.
> 
> if MWI is true there will be 2^100 worlds.
> 
> In each world there is a Sean Carroll looking at a different result.
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 2:07:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/3/2019 10:44 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>> > Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of 
>> > occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it 
>> > can't even contain copies of the experimenter. Totally ridiculous! AG 
>> 
>> It it's probability were zero would you still count its energy? 
>> 
>> Brent 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> But MWI eliminates probabilities.
> 
> That's its problem. But it has to explain the appearance of probabilities.  
> 
>> 
>> World W branches into W0 and W1, then W00, W01, W10, W11, then ...
>> 
>> They all exist in MWI.
>  
> But WA, WB, WC,... don't. it's a popular fallacy that MWI means everything 
> happens.
> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> Given a world (in Sabine's MWI above) W where there is a computer C with a 
>> quantum random number generator, after C generates a string of 1000 0s and 
>> 1s, the  energy of the computer 
>> 
>>C-[one thousand (0|1)s]
>> 
>> in each  leaf world of the resulting branching tree will be 1/(2^1000)th of 
>> energy of C.
>> 
>> @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/0b5dc5a9-5f16-4258-8ad6-9558833bfe8f%40googlegroups.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/01004B8C-EF34-401D-927B-5E859E19CA16%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-04 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 3 Oct 2019, at 21:07, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/3/2019 10:44 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>> > Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of 
>> > occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it 
>> > can't even contain copies of the experimenter. Totally ridiculous! AG 
>> 
>> It it's probability were zero would you still count its energy? 
>> 
>> Brent 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> But MWI eliminates probabilities.
> 
> That's its problem. But it has to explain the appearance of probabilities.  

Everett extracts it from the first person indeterminacy is self-superposition, 
which is the very idea of the MW or Many-histories. In his long text,  He uses 
Mechanism quasi-explicitly. Its only problem is that he has to extracts the 
wave from *all* computation, and incompleteness makes this happens. The 
“worlds” are just computations seen from the self-aware creature supported by 
those computations.



> 
>> 
>> World W branches into W0 and W1, then W00, W01, W10, W11, then ...
>> 
>> They all exist in MWI.
>  
> But WA, WB, WC,... don't. it's a popular fallacy that MWI means everything 
> happens.


Not everything happen, but a beam of photons prepared in some superposition 
states going through the corresponding relevant mirror does create the relative 
W00..., W01..., W10..., W11…,  …  A bit like the initialisation procedure in 
Shor quantum factorisation algorithm.

Bruno


> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> Given a world (in Sabine's MWI above) W where there is a computer C with a 
>> quantum random number generator, after C generates a string of 1000 0s and 
>> 1s, the  energy of the computer 
>> 
>>C-[one thousand (0|1)s]
>> 
>> in each  leaf world of the resulting branching tree will be 1/(2^1000)th of 
>> energy of C.
>> 
>> @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/fe3d7d7d-0b9c-4acf-b811-0b3b1d1d46e6%40googlegroups.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/08cda6e4-94df-a545-49c1-75d77ef9d710%40verizon.net
>  
> .

-- 
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/A161B249-BE79-4B75-89EC-5C80C69F97A9%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-04 Thread Philip Thrift



On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 2:03:59 AM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
>
> On 04-10-2019 08:20, Philip Thrift wrote: 
> > On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 6:56:59 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: 
> > 
> >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:12 AM Philip Thrift  
> >> wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:51:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell 
> >>  wrote: 
> >> 
> >> This really is a well enough explained question. 
> >> 
> >> LC 
> >> 
> >> Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the 
> >> total energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with the 
> >> probability of that branch. This works the way it always works in 
> >> quantum mechanics. There is nothing new going on here, nothing 
> >> controversial, and nothing interesting. 
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html?showComment=1569889923590#c1373154727748966620
>  
> >> [1] 
> > 
> > The trouble I see with the explanation Sabine gives, which is probably 
> > the most common response to this question, is that it dilutes the 
> > energy in each branch according to the Born weight. Given that there a 
> > zillions of branchings per second throughout the visible universe, the 
> > energy rapidly is weighted away to zero in all branches. This does not 
> > make much sense. Besides, that is not what one does in ordinary 
> > quantum mechanics -- I have no idea what Sabine is referring to here. 
> > 
> > The only solution for MWI, it seems to me, is that the energy is 
> > simply conserved in each branch, and not conserved over branching 
> > interactions. How would you ever test this, anyway? Block universe 
> > ideas do not actually help here. And appeals to energy non 
> > conservation in non-stationary universes are beside the point -- 
> > Quantum mechanics is not GR. 
> > 
> > Bruce 
> > 
> > Sabine Hossenfelder's book "Lost in Math" has this title in the 
> > recently published Italian version: 
> > 
> > "Deluded by Math" 
> > 
> > Maybe "Confused by Math" is another possibility. 
> > 
> > Many times she does exactly what she accuses (in her book) others 
> > doing. 
> > 
> > Yes, sometimes she gets very sloppy in her thinking and goes with the 
> > conventional arguments rather than thinking things through.  But, at 
> > least she does challenge the status quo on many occasions. The 
> > contrary voice is often needed. 
> > 
> > Bruce 
> > 
> > She is a prophet of a find in two regards: 
> > 
> > THE END OF THEORETICAL PHYSICS AS WE KNOW IT 
> > 
> > 
> https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-end-of-theoretical-physics-as-we-know-it-20180827/
>  
> > 
> > (the transition from conventional mathematics to 
> > programmatic/computing structures) 
> > 
> > and the delusion/confusion of today's theoretical physicists with 
> > math, leading a both quantum and cosmological multiple universes. 
> > 
> > But her nonsensical probability argument where as worlds branch (then 
> > branch again, and again) the descendant worlds get 1/2 the matter and 
> > energy of their parent, which means we should have 0 right now. 
> > 
> > (Now she could argue that one starts with 0 matter and energy from the 
> > beginning, so it's 0 all the way down.) 
> > 
>
> The descendant worlds get the same energy if they have well defined 
> energy in which case computing the weighted average to get to the 
> expectation value is unnecessary. In general the expectation value will 
> need to be computed by this weighted average. To see that this is not 
> crazy, suppose that QM is not the ultimate answer that 't Hooft is 
> correct. But it then turns out that 't Hooft's deterministic models lead 
> to a multiverse via the back door due to Poincare recurrence. And 
> because with finite information in our brains, we cannot locate 
> ourselves in a particular time period. Then when we do an experiment, a 
> splitting can occur in the sense that we now get more precisely located 
> across in the different sectors separated by astronomical large amounts 
> of time. So, no problem here with the sum of the energy of (effective) 
> branches increasing. 
>
> Saibal 
>




It seems to me that one world is enough if one permits oneself to accept 
probabilities.

One can start wherever:

The already ... mentioned psi-function is now the *means for predicting 
probability of measurement results*. In it is embodied the momentarily 
attained sum of theoretically based future expectation, somewhat as laid 
down in a catalog. ”
— Erwin Schrödinger

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

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-04 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:03 PM smitra  wrote:

>
> The descendant worlds get the same energy if they have well defined
> energy in which case computing the weighted average to get to the
> expectation value is unnecessary. In general the expectation value will
> need to be computed by this weighted average. To see that this is not
> crazy, suppose that QM is not the ultimate answer that 't Hooft is
> correct. But it then turns out that 't Hooft's deterministic models lead
> to a multiverse via the back door due to Poincare recurrence. And
> because with finite information in our brains, we cannot locate
> ourselves in a particular time period. Then when we do an experiment, a
> splitting can occur in the sense that we now get more precisely located
> across in the different sectors separated by astronomical large amounts
> of time. So, no problem here with the sum of the energy of (effective)
> branches increasing.
>

Where is all this in the Schrodinger equation?

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/CAFxXSLSygYU0w0FY94y7tMR%3DX5BbDhF_R43jQe8MDu6TKoLQHg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-04 Thread smitra

On 04-10-2019 08:20, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 6:56:59 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:12 AM Philip Thrift
wrote:

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:51:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell
wrote:

This really is a well enough explained question.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html?showComment=1569889923590#c1373154727748966620

[1]

Bruce

Sabine Hossenfelder's book "Lost in Math" has this title in the
recently published Italian version:

"Deluded by Math"

Maybe "Confused by Math" is another possibility.

Many times she does exactly what she accuses (in her book) others
doing.

Bruce

She is a prophet of a find in two regards:

THE END OF THEORETICAL PHYSICS AS WE KNOW IT

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-end-of-theoretical-physics-as-we-know-it-20180827/

(the transition from conventional mathematics to
programmatic/computing structures)

and the delusion/confusion of today's theoretical physicists with
math, leading a both quantum and cosmological multiple universes.

(Now she could argue that one starts with 0 matter and energy from the
beginning, so it's 0 all the way down.)

The descendant worlds get the same energy if they have well defined
energy in which case computing the weighted average to get to the
expectation value is unnecessary. In general the expectation value will
need to be computed by this weighted average. To see that this is not
crazy, suppose that QM is not the ultimate answer that 't Hooft is
correct. But it then turns out that 't Hooft's deterministic models lead
to a multiverse via the back door due to Poincare recurrence. And
because with finite information in our brains, we cannot locate
ourselves in a particular time period. Then when we do an experiment, a
splitting can occur in the sense that we now get more precisely located
across in the different sectors separated by astronomical large amounts
of time. So, no problem here with the sum of the energy of (effective)
branches increasing.

Saibal

--
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/7f9ca7c9ce9d515a6cfc24e8b8c80768%40zonnet.nl.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-04 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:49 PM smitra  wrote:

> On 04-10-2019 00:51, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >
> > The trouble I see with the explanation Sabine gives, which is probably
> > the most common response to this question, is that it dilutes the
> > energy in each branch according to the Born weight. Given that there a
> > zillions of branchings per second throughout the visible universe, the
> > energy rapidly is weighted away to zero in all branches. This does not
> > make much sense. Besides, that is not what one does in ordinary
> > quantum mechanics -- I have no idea what Sabine is referring to here.
> >
> > The only solution for MWI, it seems to me, is that the energy is
> > simply conserved in each branch, and not conserved over branching
> > interactions. How would you ever test this, anyway? Block universe
> > ideas do not actually help here. And appeals to energy non
> > conservation in non-stationary universes are beside the point --
> > Quantum mechanics is not GR.
> >
>
> The block universe point of view makes this a non-issue. You get into
> trouble by assuming something like presentalism, like a hidden
> assumption about the energy of one instant being transferred to the next
> instant.


The thing is that this is what the conservation of energy says -- the total
energy of the system at time t' > t is the same as the total energy at time
t. It has nothing to do with presentism or any such metaphysical position.


> If you drop this assumption and simply take thew block universe
> point of view where all the instances already exist out there, then
> there is no problem to begin with.
>

This would seem to be equivalent to the claim that energy is conserved
separately in each branch. Again, the block universe view does nothing to
assist such an interpretation, it merely shows that energy is not constant
over the "block" -- from one time slice to the next -- given that the
branching structure of the block defines a time direction. Why, on this
view, the energy should be conserved in each disjoint branch is rather
opaque.

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/CAFxXSLRgWKw%3DR%2BRdQZMPUR%3DKVkHmkwbYRcO58wCZReTS56OgMA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-04 Thread smitra

On 04-10-2019 00:51, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell
wrote:

This really is a well enough explained question.

Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up
the total energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with
the probability of that branch. This works the way it always works
in quantum mechanics. There is nothing new going on here, nothing
controversial, and nothing interesting.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html?showComment=1569889923590#c1373154727748966620

The block universe point of view makes this a non-issue. You get into
trouble by assuming something like presentalism, like a hidden
assumption about the energy of one instant being transferred to the next
instant. If you drop this assumption and simply take thew block universe
point of view where all the instances already exist out there, then
there is no problem to begin with.

Saibal

--
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/70545aa8f251aeca018ed7ea464895c4%40zonnet.nl.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-04 Thread Philip Thrift



On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 6:56:59 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:12 AM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:51:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell <
>>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 This really is a well enough explained question. 

 LC

 Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the 
> total energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with the 
> probability of that branch. This works the way it always works in quantum 
> mechanics. There is nothing new going on here, nothing controversial, and 
> nothing interesting.
>
>
>
> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html?showComment=1569889923590#c1373154727748966620
>

>>> The trouble I see with the explanation Sabine gives, which is probably 
>>> the most common response to this question, is that it dilutes the energy in 
>>> each branch according to the Born weight. Given that there a zillions of 
>>> branchings per second throughout the visible universe, the energy rapidly 
>>> is weighted away to zero in all branches. This does not make much sense. 
>>> Besides, that is not what one does in ordinary quantum mechanics -- I have 
>>> no idea what Sabine is referring to here.
>>>
>>> The only solution for MWI, it seems to me, is that the energy is simply 
>>> conserved in each branch, and not conserved over branching interactions. 
>>> How would you ever test this, anyway? Block universe ideas do not actually 
>>> help here. And appeals to energy non conservation in non-stationary 
>>> universes are beside the point -- Quantum mechanics is not GR.
>>>
>>> Bruce 
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sabine Hossenfelder's book "Lost in Math" has this title in the recently 
>> published Italian version:
>>
>> "Deluded by Math" 
>>
>> Maybe "Confused by Math" is another possibility.
>>
>> Many times she does exactly what she accuses (in her book) others doing.
>>
>
> Yes, sometimes she gets very sloppy in her thinking and goes with the 
> conventional arguments rather than thinking things through.  But, at least 
> she does challenge the status quo on many occasions. The contrary voice is 
> often needed.
>
> Bruce 
>

She is a prophet of a find in two regards:

*The End Of Theoretical Physics As We Know It*

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-end-of-theoretical-physics-as-we-know-it-20180827/
(the transition from conventional mathematics to programmatic/computing 
structures)

and the delusion/confusion of today's theoretical physicists with math, 
leading a both quantum and cosmological multiple universes. 

But her nonsensical probability argument where as worlds branch (then 
branch again, and again) the descendant worlds get 1/2 the matter and 
energy of their parent, which means we should have 0 right now.

(Now she could argue that one starts with 0 matter and energy from the 
beginning, so it's 0 all the way down.)

@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/86bddc3f-4494-4079-b974-95cc6738ddaf%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-03 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:12 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:

> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:51:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This really is a well enough explained question.
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>> Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the
 total energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with the
 probability of that branch. This works the way it always works in quantum
 mechanics. There is nothing new going on here, nothing controversial, and
 nothing interesting.



 http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html?showComment=1569889923590#c1373154727748966620

>>>
>> The trouble I see with the explanation Sabine gives, which is probably
>> the most common response to this question, is that it dilutes the energy in
>> each branch according to the Born weight. Given that there a zillions of
>> branchings per second throughout the visible universe, the energy rapidly
>> is weighted away to zero in all branches. This does not make much sense.
>> Besides, that is not what one does in ordinary quantum mechanics -- I have
>> no idea what Sabine is referring to here.
>>
>> The only solution for MWI, it seems to me, is that the energy is simply
>> conserved in each branch, and not conserved over branching interactions.
>> How would you ever test this, anyway? Block universe ideas do not actually
>> help here. And appeals to energy non conservation in non-stationary
>> universes are beside the point -- Quantum mechanics is not GR.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
>
> Sabine Hossenfelder's book "Lost in Math" has this title in the recently
> published Italian version:
>
> "Deluded by Math"
>
> Maybe "Confused by Math" is another possibility.
>
> Many times she does exactly what she accuses (in her book) others doing.
>

Yes, sometimes she gets very sloppy in her thinking and goes with the
conventional arguments rather than thinking things through.  But, at least
she does challenge the status quo on many occasions. The contrary voice is
often needed.

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/CAFxXSLSDUzk%3DFLduHUeR5WAc9K8Vx6tXnG8Zg9vdV4VhVhFJZg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-03 Thread Philip Thrift



On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:51:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
>> This really is a well enough explained question. 
>>
>> LC
>>
>> Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the total 
>>> energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with the probability of 
>>> that branch. This works the way it always works in quantum mechanics. There 
>>> is nothing new going on here, nothing controversial, and nothing 
>>> interesting.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html?showComment=1569889923590#c1373154727748966620
>>>
>>
> The trouble I see with the explanation Sabine gives, which is probably the 
> most common response to this question, is that it dilutes the energy in 
> each branch according to the Born weight. Given that there a zillions of 
> branchings per second throughout the visible universe, the energy rapidly 
> is weighted away to zero in all branches. This does not make much sense. 
> Besides, that is not what one does in ordinary quantum mechanics -- I have 
> no idea what Sabine is referring to here.
>
> The only solution for MWI, it seems to me, is that the energy is simply 
> conserved in each branch, and not conserved over branching interactions. 
> How would you ever test this, anyway? Block universe ideas do not actually 
> help here. And appeals to energy non conservation in non-stationary 
> universes are beside the point -- Quantum mechanics is not GR.
>
> Bruce 
>




Sabine Hossenfelder's book "Lost in Math" has this title in the recently 
published Italian version:

"Deluded by Math" 

Maybe "Confused by Math" is another possibility.

Many times she does exactly what she accuses (in her book) others doing.

@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/75fb5af0-24d5-4ed8-aade-209ce797f86a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-03 Thread Philip Thrift


The question is about quantum many worlds. Not cosmology.

@philipthrift

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:22:02 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
> Energy isn't even conserved under conventional cosmological models.  The 
> expansion of space causes a loss of radiation energy, and if vacuum energy 
> is non zero (also an assumed by current models) the Hubble expansion is 
> creating energy.
>
> Jason
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 2:33 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
>>
>> There is no way for the Many Worldists to squirrel out of it.
>>
>> Run the code
>>
>> *Getting started with Qiskit: while exploring the quantum world, let’s 
>> play the coin flip game!*
>>
>>
>> https://medium.com/@esobimpe/getting-started-with-qiskit-while-exploring-the-quantum-world-lets-play-the-coin-flip-game-2319bb293c6a
>>
>> with a loop of 100.
>>
>> if MWI is true there will be 2^100 worlds.
>>
>> In each world there is a Sean Carroll looking at a different result.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 2:07:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/3/2019 10:44 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 



 On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
 > Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of 
 > occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it 
 > can't even contain copies of the experimenter. Totally ridiculous! AG 

 It it's probability were zero would you still count its energy? 

 Brent 

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But MWI eliminates probabilities.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's its problem. But it has to explain the appearance of 
>>> probabilities.  
>>>
>>>
>>> World W branches into W0 and W1, then W00, W01, W10, W11, then ...
>>>
>>> They all exist in MWI.
>>>
>>>  
>>> But WA, WB, WC,... don't. it's a popular fallacy that MWI means 
>>> everything happens.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>
>>> Given a world (in Sabine's MWI above) W where there is a computer C with 
>>> a quantum random number generator, after C generates a string of 1000 0s 
>>> and 1s, the  energy of the computer 
>>>
>>>C-[one thousand (0|1)s]
>>>
>>> in each  leaf world of the resulting branching tree will be 1/(2^1000)th 
>>> of energy of C.
>>>
>>> @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/0b5dc5a9-5f16-4258-8ad6-9558833bfe8f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-03 Thread Philip Thrift


Right.

It's a perfectly good question that Sabine doesn't answer.

(Of course if there is one world, there is no problem. But no reasonable 
physicist believes in many worlds. They are deluded by math.)



@philipthrift


On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:24:55 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> This really is a well enough explained question. 
>
> LC
>
> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:24:15 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Finding Sabine Hossenfelder there ...
>>
>> David Appell10:49 PM, October 02, 2019
>>
>> Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new 
>> branched off world requires no new energy?
>>
>> None of the enlightened people here has stooped to answer this small but 
>> significant question. They don't even try. Please try. Assume we're stupid.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sabine Hossenfelder  12:30 AM, October 03, 2019
>> David,
>>
>> The reason that the "enlightened people" do not answer this question is 
>> that it has been answered thousands of times and you could easily answer 
>> your question by doing as much as asking Google. That you come here 
>> nevertheless to ask this question, one more time, demonstrates that you are 
>> not really interested in an answer but merely want to troll.
>>
>> Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the total 
>> energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with the probability of 
>> that branch. This works the way it always works in quantum mechanics. There 
>> is nothing new going on here, nothing controversial, and nothing 
>> interesting.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html?showComment=1569889923590#c1373154727748966620
>>
>> @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/6657a9b6-209e-4692-aa30-451f63bc53a3%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-03 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This really is a well enough explained question.
>
> LC
>
> Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the total
>> energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with the probability of
>> that branch. This works the way it always works in quantum mechanics. There
>> is nothing new going on here, nothing controversial, and nothing
>> interesting.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html?showComment=1569889923590#c1373154727748966620
>>
>
The trouble I see with the explanation Sabine gives, which is probably the
most common response to this question, is that it dilutes the energy in
each branch according to the Born weight. Given that there a zillions of
branchings per second throughout the visible universe, the energy rapidly
is weighted away to zero in all branches. This does not make much sense.
Besides, that is not what one does in ordinary quantum mechanics -- I have
no idea what Sabine is referring to here.

The only solution for MWI, it seems to me, is that the energy is simply
conserved in each branch, and not conserved over branching interactions.
How would you ever test this, anyway? Block universe ideas do not actually
help here. And appeals to energy non conservation in non-stationary
universes are beside the point -- Quantum mechanics is not GR.

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/CAFxXSLTojDcdP%3DHO2PCk8-b95QP%2B7SC55vXv%3DxuJdTQfcWf5SA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-03 Thread Lawrence Crowell

This really is a well enough explained question. 

LC

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:24:15 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> Finding Sabine Hossenfelder there ...
>
> David Appell10:49 PM, October 02, 2019
>
> Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new 
> branched off world requires no new energy?
>
> None of the enlightened people here has stooped to answer this small but 
> significant question. They don't even try. Please try. Assume we're stupid.
>
>
>
> Sabine Hossenfelder  12:30 AM, October 03, 2019
> David,
>
> The reason that the "enlightened people" do not answer this question is 
> that it has been answered thousands of times and you could easily answer 
> your question by doing as much as asking Google. That you come here 
> nevertheless to ask this question, one more time, demonstrates that you are 
> not really interested in an answer but merely want to troll.
>
> Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the total 
> energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with the probability of 
> that branch. This works the way it always works in quantum mechanics. There 
> is nothing new going on here, nothing controversial, and nothing 
> interesting.
>
>
>
> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html?showComment=1569889923590#c1373154727748966620
>
> @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/765fc985-b037-4267-b35c-171cd71aad91%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-03 Thread Jason Resch

Energy isn't even conserved under conventional cosmological models.  The
expansion of space causes a loss of radiation energy, and if vacuum energy
is non zero (also an assumed by current models) the Hubble expansion is
creating energy.

Jason

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 2:33 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

>
> There is no way for the Many Worldists to squirrel out of it.
>
> Run the code
>
> *Getting started with Qiskit: while exploring the quantum world, let’s
> play the coin flip game!*
>
>
> https://medium.com/@esobimpe/getting-started-with-qiskit-while-exploring-the-quantum-world-lets-play-the-coin-flip-game-2319bb293c6a
>
> with a loop of 100.
>
> if MWI is true there will be 2^100 worlds.
>
> In each world there is a Sean Carroll looking at a different result.
>
> @philipthrift
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 2:07:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/3/2019 10:44 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>> > Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of
>>> > occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it
>>> > can't even contain copies of the experimenter. Totally ridiculous! AG
>>>
>>> It it's probability were zero would you still count its energy?
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But MWI eliminates probabilities.
>>
>>
>> That's its problem. But it has to explain the appearance of
>> probabilities.
>>
>>
>> World W branches into W0 and W1, then W00, W01, W10, W11, then ...
>>
>> They all exist in MWI.
>>
>>
>> But WA, WB, WC,... don't. it's a popular fallacy that MWI means
>> everything happens.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> Given a world (in Sabine's MWI above) W where there is a computer C with
>> a quantum random number generator, after C generates a string of 1000 0s
>> and 1s, the  energy of the computer
>>
>>C-[one thousand (0|1)s]
>>
>> in each  leaf world of the resulting branching tree will be 1/(2^1000)th
>> of energy of C.
>>
>> @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/46ef9060-c1d7-4760-9ed5-48cb37dc83dc%40googlegroups.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/CA%2BBCJUjnzHb%3DW%2BKA%3DL%3DeLPR-bgjWXb5FCw1iY76xsvdf4_8HNQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-03 Thread Philip Thrift


There is no way for the Many Worldists to squirrel out of it.

Run the code

*Getting started with Qiskit: while exploring the quantum world, let’s play 
the coin flip game!*

https://medium.com/@esobimpe/getting-started-with-qiskit-while-exploring-the-quantum-world-lets-play-the-coin-flip-game-2319bb293c6a

with a loop of 100.

if MWI is true there will be 2^100 worlds.

In each world there is a Sean Carroll looking at a different result.

@philipthrift




On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 2:07:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/3/2019 10:44 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>> > Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of 
>> > occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it 
>> > can't even contain copies of the experimenter. Totally ridiculous! AG 
>>
>> It it's probability were zero would you still count its energy? 
>>
>> Brent 
>>
>
>
>
> But MWI eliminates probabilities.
>
>
> That's its problem. But it has to explain the appearance of 
> probabilities.  
>
>
> World W branches into W0 and W1, then W00, W01, W10, W11, then ...
>
> They all exist in MWI.
>
>  
> But WA, WB, WC,... don't. it's a popular fallacy that MWI means everything 
> happens.
>
> Brent
>
>
> Given a world (in Sabine's MWI above) W where there is a computer C with a 
> quantum random number generator, after C generates a string of 1000 0s and 
> 1s, the  energy of the computer 
>
>C-[one thousand (0|1)s]
>
> in each  leaf world of the resulting branching tree will be 1/(2^1000)th 
> of energy of C.
>
> @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/46ef9060-c1d7-4760-9ed5-48cb37dc83dc%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-03 Thread smitra

On 03-10-2019 19:44, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of
occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it

can't even contain copies of the experimenter. Totally ridiculous!

It it's probability were zero would you still count its energy?

Brent

But MWI eliminates probabilities.

World W branches into W0 and W1, then W00, W01, W10, W11, then ...

They all exist in MWI.

Given a world (in Sabine's MWI above) W where there is a computer C
with a quantum random number generator, after C generates a string of
1000 0s and 1s, the energy of the computer

C-[one thousand (0|1)s]

in each leaf world of the resulting branching tree will be
1/(2^1000)th of energy of C.

This is a problem only if you reject the block time view and instead
support presentalism. And presentalism is rather unnatural in the MWI to
begin with because how doe you synchronize all the present moments in
the different worlds? That energy is conserved in classical physics does
not necessarily mean that the past world was somehow annihilated and all
its energy ended up in the new world. But if you believe in
presentalism, then you can interpret time evolution in this way. This
then leads to the paradox of energy conservation in the MWI. But in the
block time view energy conservation is not the result of old worlds
vanishing and new worlds coming into existence. All the worlds, old and
new exist in a timeless manner, and they have certain energy contents.
The MWI then says that one world can have many successor worlds and
obviously it's then rather natural that each successor has the same
energy as the original.

Saibal

--
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/c32dc617824675b42e2b38810e319371%40zonnet.nl.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-03 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/3/2019 10:44 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
> Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of
> occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it
> can't even contain copies of the experimenter. Totally
ridiculous! AG

It it's probability were zero would you still count its energy?

Brent

But MWI eliminates probabilities.

That's its problem. But it has to explain the appearance of probabilities.

World W branches into W0 and W1, then W00, W01, W10, W11, then ...

They all exist in MWI.

But WA, WB, WC,... don't. it's a popular fallacy that MWI means
everything happens.

Brent

Given a world (in Sabine's MWI above) W where there is a computer C
with a quantum random number generator, after C generates a string of
1000 0s and 1s, the energy of the computer

C-[one thousand (0|1)s]

in each leaf world of the resulting branching tree will be
1/(2^1000)th of energy of C.

@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/fe3d7d7d-0b9c-4acf-b811-0b3b1d1d46e6%40googlegroups.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/08cda6e4-94df-a545-49c1-75d77ef9d710%40verizon.net.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-03 Thread Alan Grayson



On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 11:39:09 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> > Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of 
> > occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it 
> > can't even contain copies of the experimenter. Totally ridiculous! AG 
>
> It it's probability were zero would you still count its energy? 
>
> Brent 
>

Presumably, in that model, its energy would be zero, in effect a 
non-existent universe. 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/44d71301-2a77-4335-a5dd-28ad77f999f5%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-03 Thread Philip Thrift



On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
> > Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of 
> > occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it 
> > can't even contain copies of the experimenter. Totally ridiculous! AG 
>
> It it's probability were zero would you still count its energy? 
>
> Brent 
>



But MWI eliminates probabilities.

World W branches into W0 and W1, then W00, W01, W10, W11, then ...

They all exist in MWI.

Given a world (in Sabine's MWI above) W where there is a computer C with a 
quantum random number generator, after C generates a string of 1000 0s and 
1s, the  energy of the computer 

   C-[one thousand (0|1)s]

in each  leaf world of the resulting branching tree will be 1/(2^1000)th of 
energy of C.

@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/fe3d7d7d-0b9c-4acf-b811-0b3b1d1d46e6%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-03 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List





On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of 
occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it 
can't even contain copies of the experimenter. Totally ridiculous! AG 


It it's probability were zero would you still count its energy?

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/d1b7c87b-96d7-a2bd-4ecd-f1ef6ccfba8a%40verizon.net.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-03 Thread Philip Thrift



On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 8:30:00 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 4:24:15 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Finding Sabine Hossenfelder there ...
>>
>> David Appell10:49 PM, October 02, 2019
>>
>> Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new 
>> branched off world requires no new energy?
>>
>> None of the enlightened people here has stooped to answer this small but 
>> significant question. They don't even try. Please try. Assume we're stupid.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sabine Hossenfelder  12:30 AM, October 03, 2019
>> David,
>>
>> The reason that the "enlightened people" do not answer this question is 
>> that it has been answered thousands of times and you could easily answer 
>> your question by doing as much as asking Google. That you come here 
>> nevertheless to ask this question, one more time, demonstrates that you are 
>> not really interested in an answer but merely want to troll.
>>
>> Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the total 
>> energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with the probability of 
>> that branch. This works the way it always works in quantum mechanics. There 
>> is nothing new going on here, nothing controversial, and nothing 
>> interesting.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html?showComment=1569889923590#c1373154727748966620
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of 
> occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it can't 
> even contain copies of the experimenter. Totally ridiculous! AG  
>

Exactly. 

Given a world (in Sabine's MWI above) W where there is a computer C with a 
quantum random number generator, after C generates a string of 1000 0s and 
1s, the  energy of the computer 

   C-[one thousand (0|1)s]

in each  leaf world of the resulting branching tree will be 1/(2^1000)th of 
energy of C.

@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/e5e99460-aebe-4cb8-8da9-090a42bdfc41%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-03 Thread Alan Grayson



On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 4:24:15 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> Finding Sabine Hossenfelder there ...
>
> David Appell10:49 PM, October 02, 2019
>
> Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new 
> branched off world requires no new energy?
>
> None of the enlightened people here has stooped to answer this small but 
> significant question. They don't even try. Please try. Assume we're stupid.
>
>
>
> Sabine Hossenfelder  12:30 AM, October 03, 2019
> David,
>
> The reason that the "enlightened people" do not answer this question is 
> that it has been answered thousands of times and you could easily answer 
> your question by doing as much as asking Google. That you come here 
> nevertheless to ask this question, one more time, demonstrates that you are 
> not really interested in an answer but merely want to troll.
>
> Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the total 
> energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with the probability of 
> that branch. This works the way it always works in quantum mechanics. There 
> is nothing new going on here, nothing controversial, and nothing 
> interesting.
>
>
>
> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html?showComment=1569889923590#c1373154727748966620
>
> @philipthrift
>

Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of 
occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it can't 
even contain copies of the experimenter. Totally ridiculous! 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/619ee3ca-0a42-417d-8e1a-abca17db031b%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-03 Thread Philip Thrift



On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 7:56:03 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 7:04 AM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
> * >>> Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new 
>> branched off world requires no new energy?*
>>
>  
>
> >> Can somebody explain to this dummy why anyone would expect energy 
>> would be conserved on the cosmological scale in a expanding accelerating 
>> universe when both Noether's Theorem and Einstein's General Relativity 
>> clearly state it wouldn't be?
>>
>> > The question was about Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum 
>> Mechanics, not Cosmology or General Relativity.
>>
>
> Can somebody explain to this dummy why anyone would think Cosmology and 
> General Relativity and Noether's Theorem would have nothing to do with 
> Many Worlds?
>
> John K Clark
>
>
>  
>
>
The answer to that should be fascinating.

Connect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

+

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation 

to answer the Many Worlds energy question above.

@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/1e5ac9a6-21fb-481c-a442-ec84c235dac1%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-03 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 7:04 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:

* >>> Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new
> branched off world requires no new energy?*
>


>> Can somebody explain to this dummy why anyone would expect energy would
> be conserved on the cosmological scale in a expanding accelerating universe
> when both Noether's Theorem and Einstein's General Relativity clearly state
> it wouldn't be?
>
> > The question was about Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics,
> not Cosmology or General Relativity.
>

Can somebody explain to this dummy why anyone would think Cosmology and
General Relativity and Noether's Theorem would have nothing to do with Many
Worlds?

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/CAJPayv0Rw2SNi5WPHQBfgRqU_gb_EQ1FyW6M8cM6dj6zCeopsw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-03 Thread Philip Thrift



On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:36:49 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 6:24 AM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
> *> Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new 
>> branched off world requires no new energy?*
>
>
> Can somebody explain to this dummy why anyone would expect energy would be 
> conserved on the cosmological scale in a expanding accelerating universe 
> when both Noether's Theorem and Einstein's General Relativity clearly state 
> it wouldn't be?
>
>  John K Clark
>
>
>



The question was about Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, not 
Cosmology or General Relativity.

@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/09ead49d-2bb1-45a6-9786-768a73049bb5%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-03 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 6:24 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:

*> Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new
> branched off world requires no new energy?*


Can somebody explain to this dummy why anyone would expect energy would be
conserved on the cosmological scale in a expanding accelerating universe
when both Noether's Theorem and Einstein's General Relativity clearly state
it wouldn't be?

 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/CAJPayv1JL1JLnUA0uU272vSnwU96XcnmAy7EvgVG1Xh%3DyU7fTw%40mail.gmail.com.

57 matches

Mail list logo