subject:"Re\: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule"

On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:07 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 6:42 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> *> Sure, a spring balance needs to be calibrated against some standard
>> mass. But we do not calibrate every day. Once the scale is set, we assume
>> that the spring constant or whatever remains the same, so that
>> recalibration is not necessary.*
>>
>
> You're right, it's not necessary because as long as the test mass and the
> mass standard decrease by an equal percentage you're always gonna get the
> same result and you'll never notice that anything has changed.
>

No need to compare with a standard mass.

> *> So if all energies (including mass) drop by 90%, we will be able to
>> detect this as long as the spring constant does not also change by this
>> amount. Springs tend to rely on the electromagnetic properties of metals,
>> and these will not change just because we measure a spin component in the
>> next room.*
>>
>
> If Many Worlds is correct then of course the spring constant will change
> because the world will split due to ANY measurement, and the absolute
> non-relative amount of energy of EVERY type will decrease.
>

The Schrodinger equation does not change the spring constant. The spring
constant itself is not an energy, so it does not change. It merely reflects
the change in any mass placed on the scales.


* > I used a spring balance to compare a mass against the gravitational
>> field, where I assumed that Newton's constant does not change on a spin
>> measurement. If all energies (and masses) drop by 50% in each branch of the
>> spin measurement, then the mass of the earth decreases by 50%, and the
>> local acceleration due to gravity, g, also drops by 50%. Now consider a
>> simple pendulum: the period of swing is T = 2*pi*sqr(L/g), where L is the
>> length of the pendulum. If g drops by 50%*,[...]
>>
>
> But g does NOT drop by 50% and I never said it did,
>


If you actually calculate g, it is g = GM/r^2, where G is Newton's
constant, M is the mass of the earth, and r is the radius of the earth. So
of course g change in exactly the same proportion as every energy and mass.


I said the gravitational potential energy drops by 50%, and that will
> happen if the mass/energy of a gravitationally bound system drops by 50%
> even if g remains constant.
>

g does not remain constant. The gravitational PE is PE = mgh, so if both m
and g decreased by 50%, the PE decreases by 75%. Showing, once again, that
the idea that all energies decrease by the same proportion is contrary to
the physics of the situation
.

> If yesterday I measured the mass/energy of a pendulum and of the entire
> earth against an energy standard and I measure those things again today
> against today's energy standard, and if the mass/energy of the pendulum and
> the earth and today's energy standard have all decreased by 50%, then I
> will get the same measured value that I got yesterday even if g really is
> the same as it was yesterday.
>

We are comparing the pendulum period before and after the split, not masses
against some standard every day.


And yes the force that the earth is pulling down on that pendulum would
> only be half as strong as it was yesterday, HOWEVER  the inertia (which is
> proportional to the mass/energy) of the pendulum would only be half as much
> as it was yesterday, so the two changes with cancel out and the pendulum
> would fall with the same acceleration that it did yesterday, and the
> period of its swing would be the same too.
>

The period of the pendulum is T = 2pisqrt(L/g). In this equation, only g
changes given your theory of the split, so the period certainly changes.
The period does not depend on the pendulum's mass, so inertial effects are
included in the calculation of the above formula for the period..

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/CAFxXSLRKguu%3DJSuHC_-ZCrXVzGgFp0sz96_Y01HFd7UP07kXNw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:33 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
> If all mass were scaled down by the same factor the gravitational
> interactions, like orbits and pendulums, would seem unchanged.
>

You might want to rethink that! At the surface of the earth (radius r)
Newton's law of gravitation states that the force on a particle of mass m is

   F = GMm/r^2,

where G is Newton's constant, and M is the mass of the earth. Then using
Newton's first law of motion, F = mg,
where g is the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the earth, we
find by equating the two expressions for F:

   g = GM/r^2.

So, when all masses decrease by 50%, the value of g also decreases by 50%.
This leads to an obvious change in the period of the simple pendulum:

  T = 2pi sqrt(L/g),

for a pendulum of length L. Note that the period of a pendulum does not
depend on the mass suspended at the end of the string, but it does depend
on the mass of the earth,

But what about the natural frequency of spring-mass systems?  Halving the
> mass while the EM forces between molecules of the spring stay the same
> means the frequency will go up.   So must all interaction constants change
> to save the appearance?
>

JKC seems to think so. But that is obviously absurd. Any change in the
overall energy of a branch leads to immediately apparent effects.

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/CAFxXSLQoA0fGG2DK0NOBaPKzkdj%2BueZ6mmUYLmtN0KGmfomuBg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

2022-04-25 Thread Brent Meeker




On 4/25/2022 6:06 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 6:42 PM Bruce Kellett  
wrote:


>> The only reason we think the gravitational constant does not
change is because when we measure the potential gravitational
energy in something today against a standard calibration
energy we find that we get the same number of energy units
that we got yesterday when we measured the potential
gravitational energy it was in against a standard calibration
energy.


/> Sure, a spring balance needs to be calibrated against some
standard mass. But we do not calibrate every day. Once the scale
is set, we assume that the spring constant or whatever remains the
same, so that recalibration is not necessary./


You're right, it's not necessarybecauseas long as the test mass and 
the mass standard decrease by an equal percentage you're always gonna 
get the same result and you'll never notice that anything has changed.


/> So if all energies (including mass) drop by 90%, we will be
able to detect this as long as the spring constant does not also
change by this amount. Springs tend to rely on the
electromagnetic properties of metals, and these will not
change just because we measure a spin component in the next room./


IfMany Worlds is correct then of course thespring constant will change 
because the world will split due to ANY measurement, and the absolute 
non-relative amount of energy of EVERY type will decrease.


/> I used a spring balance to compare a mass against the
gravitational field, where I assumed that Newton's constant does
not change on a spin measurement. If all energies (and masses)
drop by 50% in each branch of the spin measurement, then the mass
of the earth decreases by 50%, and the local acceleration due to
gravity, g, also drops by 50%. Now consider a simple pendulum: the
period of swing is T = 2*pi*sqr(L/g), where L is the length of the
pendulum. If g drops by 50%/,[...]


But g does NOT drop by 50% and I never said it did, I said the 
gravitational potential energy drops by 50%, and that will happen if 
the mass/energy of a gravitationally bound system drops by 50% even if 
g remains constant. If yesterday I measured the mass/energy of a 
pendulum and of the entire earth against an energy standard and I 
measure those things again today against today's energy standard, and 
if the mass/energy of the pendulum and the earth and today's energy 
standard have all decreased by 50%, then I will get the same measured 
value that I got yesterday even if g really is the same as it was 
yesterday.


If all mass were scaled down by the same factor the gravitational 
interactions, like orbits and pendulums, would seem unchanged.  But what 
about the natural frequency of spring-mass systems?  Halving the mass 
while the EM forces between molecules of the spring stay the same means 
the frequency will go up.   So must all interaction constants change to 
save the appearance?


Brent



And yes the force that the earth is pulling down on that pendulum 
would only be half as strong as it was yesterday, HOWEVER  the inertia 
(which is proportional to the mass/energy) of the pendulum would only 
be half as much as it was yesterday, so the two changes with cancel 
out and the pendulum would fall with the same acceleration that it did 
yesterday, and the period of its swing would be the same too.


John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis 



maq
--
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/CAJPayv0%3DQDjx1KQBSv823YFAVEHhGLdd%3DLWXTtnnKv-CJgJC%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9e47c1ec-7f58-a3d7-d84c-810277a3bb52%40gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

NLAW which was based on the AT-4 which is Swedish, is great for urban fighting 
as you indicate, but get it out overland and ...?

-Original Message-
From: Alan Grayson 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Mon, Apr 25, 2022 8:38 pm
Subject: Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 6:17:22 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

Ok, thanks for your response, AG. You are forecasting that the EU and or the US 
and Canada will continue to send, antitank and anti-aircraft missiles into 
Ukraine. Are you concerned that this will be successful, even with a Russian 
onslaught against the insertion of these into the Ukraine? Do you see a Russian 
attempt to wreck NATO countries via a conventional roll forward as with the 
Soviets and the Fulda Gap push? The notion that the demoralized Russian 
soldiers just stopping the madness on their own, goes against what the Soviets 
did in WW2. The NKVD has their own barrage battalions of troops to ensure that 
no Russian soldier retreated from the front line. So why not FSB or GRU troops 
today? 
Now using Sarin or Tabun or Soman or VX against the Ukrainians would seemingly 
be countered by the Ukrainian troops fighting in donated tox suits, and the 
strategy would then bring the fighting as quick as possible to the Russian 
troops. This, guaranteeing a mix of those fighting protected versus 
unprotected. I am suspecting that outside of Spetznaz, most Russian draftees 
will no be so protected? 
I will still hold open the possibility of giving Vlad an out, but you could be 
totally accurate regarding the Russkie mindset. I am not sure what 
circumstances would produce an ouster of Vlad, if such is even conceivable? 

-Original Message-
From: Alan Grayson 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Mon, Apr 25, 2022 7:26 pm
Subject: Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:19:07 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

Hmm. You AG obviously haven't seen the state of education today with its 
corrosive, racial, and sexually preferenced faith movements? The mentioning of 
the Missiles of October moment and predicting the outcome is an interesting 
claim. Me, being a wimp, except when its time to retaliate, would have demurred 
from JFK's placing of Jupiter missiles in Turkey. A provocation, yet what do I 
call Khrushchev's walling up of Berlin in 1961? Monday morning quarterbacking 
is what I do, and today is a monday. For Putin, as JC has objected to, I'd 
offer Putin the right to place hypersonic missiles in "Cuber," ah, Cuba like in 
1962. Why? Face saving for Putin with the Russian establishment and population, 
in exchange for Ukraine withdrawal, and a Neutrality agreement, with whomever? 

This won't work in the present situation. Firstly, Putin will never willingly 
withdraw. And it was already tried! Remember the Budapest Memoranum of 1994? 
The Russians can't be trusted, and any agreement allowing any territorial 
concessions would be Munich 2.0. In this situation the Russians will regroup 
and try another day to conquer Ukraine. The only answer is to continue the 
fight until the Russians realize that tanks, towed and self-propelled artillery 
are obsolete against Javalins, INLAWS, etc. and counter-battery artillery. 
Eventually, the Russian soldiers will become so demoralized that they'll refuse 
to fight. Putin will likely use chemical weapons and blame the Ukrainians for 
their use. But it won't be decisive, and IMO tactical nukes will probably not 
be used. AG

I meant  NLAW,   https://special-ops.org/nlaw-the-ultimate-tank-killer/I don't 
think the experience of WW2 is particularly relevant to the current situation 
where Russia is the invader. AG

My idea is, how many times can ya kill us, if once suffices? This doesn't mean 
we turn the other cheek, and yes since Putin + Xi want an arms race, we should 
oblige them. 
Russian,  Sarmat (ICBM) and and Khinzal (cruise hypersonic) weapons, also a 
pride booster.Yeah, Cub-er!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienroblin/2022/02/08/russia-deploys-hypersonic-missile-to-baltic-in-range-of-nato-capitols/?sh=4401e0be217e
On the Udder Hand said da Cow...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/07/us-china-russia-biden-hypersonic-missile-defense-pentagon/

I also read a lot from Brian Wang's website Next Big Future for both bio, med, 
energy, and weapons, foreign policy goings on. He keeps and eye on things. But 
this too, is a reco from an aggressive schmuck as myself, who looks at things 
in a nuanced and not necessarily, ideological. Balanced, no, nuanced, yes.  

Nothing humble about you. Sagan was my boss for 18 months. I never claimed he 
was a friend. What university did you attend? I am a Cornell graduate, School 
of Arts and Sciences. I had a physics course with Philip Morrison. During the 
Cuban Missile Crisis I correctly predicted the outcome, but still got a 
"gentleman's" C in my course on International Relat

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 6:42 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

>> The only reason we think the gravitational constant does not change is
>> because when we measure the potential gravitational energy in something
>> today against a standard calibration energy we find that we get the same
>> number of energy units that we got yesterday when we measured the potential
>> gravitational energy it was in against a standard calibration energy.
>>
>
> *> Sure, a spring balance needs to be calibrated against some standard
> mass. But we do not calibrate every day. Once the scale is set, we assume
> that the spring constant or whatever remains the same, so that
> recalibration is not necessary.*
>

You're right, it's not necessary because as long as the test mass and the
mass standard decrease by an equal percentage you're always gonna get the
same result and you'll never notice that anything has changed.

*> So if all energies (including mass) drop by 90%, we will be able to
> detect this as long as the spring constant does not also change by this
> amount. Springs tend to rely on the electromagnetic properties of metals,
> and these will not change just because we measure a spin component in the
> next room.*
>

If Many Worlds is correct then of course the spring constant will change
because the world will split due to ANY measurement, and the absolute
non-relative amount of energy of EVERY type will decrease.

* > I used a spring balance to compare a mass against the gravitational
> field, where I assumed that Newton's constant does not change on a spin
> measurement. If all energies (and masses) drop by 50% in each branch of the
> spin measurement, then the mass of the earth decreases by 50%, and the
> local acceleration due to gravity, g, also drops by 50%. Now consider a
> simple pendulum: the period of swing is T = 2*pi*sqr(L/g), where L is the
> length of the pendulum. If g drops by 50%*,[...]
>

But g does NOT drop by 50% and I never said it did, I said the
gravitational potential energy drops by 50%, and that will happen if the
mass/energy of a gravitationally bound system drops by 50% even if g
remains constant. If yesterday I measured the mass/energy of a pendulum and
of the entire earth against an energy standard and I measure those things
again today against today's energy standard, and if the mass/energy of the
pendulum and the earth and today's energy standard have all decreased by
50%, then I will get the same measured value that I got yesterday even if g
really is the same as it was yesterday.

And yes the force that the earth is pulling down on that pendulum would
only be half as strong as it was yesterday, HOWEVER  the inertia (which is
proportional to the mass/energy) of the pendulum would only be half as much
as it was yesterday, so the two changes with cancel out and the pendulum
would fall with the same acceleration that it did yesterday, and the period
of its swing would be the same too.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

maq

-- 
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/CAJPayv0%3DQDjx1KQBSv823YFAVEHhGLdd%3DLWXTtnnKv-CJgJC%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule



On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 6:17:22 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> Ok, thanks for your response, AG. You are forecasting that the EU and or 
> the US and Canada will continue to send, antitank and anti-aircraft 
> missiles into Ukraine. Are you concerned that this will be successful, even 
> with a Russian onslaught against the insertion of these into the Ukraine?  
> Do you see a Russian attempt to wreck NATO countries via a conventional 
> roll forward as with the Soviets and the Fulda Gap push? The notion that 
> the demoralized Russian soldiers just stopping the madness on their own, 
> goes against what the Soviets did in WW2. The NKVD has their own barrage 
> battalions of troops to ensure that no Russian soldier retreated from the 
> front line. So why not FSB or GRU troops today?  
>
> Now using Sarin or Tabun or Soman or VX against the Ukrainians would 
> seemingly be countered by the Ukrainian troops fighting in donated tox 
> suits, and the strategy would then bring the fighting as quick as possible 
> to the Russian troops. This, guaranteeing a mix of those fighting protected 
> versus unprotected. I am suspecting that outside of Spetznaz, most Russian 
> draftees will no be so protected? 
>
> I will still hold open the possibility of giving Vlad an out, but you 
> could be totally accurate regarding the Russkie mindset. I am not sure what 
> circumstances would produce an ouster of Vlad, if such is even conceivable? 
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Grayson 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Mon, Apr 25, 2022 7:26 pm
> Subject: Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:19:07 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Hmm. You AG obviously haven't seen the state of education today with its 
> corrosive, racial, and sexually preferenced faith movements? The 
> mentioning of the Missiles of October moment and predicting the outcome is 
> an interesting claim. Me, being a wimp, except when its time to retaliate, 
> would have demurred from JFK's placing of Jupiter missiles in Turkey. A 
> provocation, yet what do I call Khrushchev's walling up of Berlin in 1961? 
> Monday morning quarterbacking is what I do, and today is a monday. For 
> Putin, as JC has objected to, I'd offer Putin the right to place hypersonic 
> missiles in "Cuber," ah, Cuba like in 1962. Why? Face saving for Putin 
> with the Russian establishment and population, in exchange for Ukraine 
> withdrawal, and a Neutrality agreement, with whomever? 
>
>
> This won't work in the present situation. Firstly, Putin will never 
> willingly withdraw. And it was already tried! Remember the Budapest 
> Memoranum of 1994? The Russians can't be trusted, and any agreement 
> allowing any territorial concessions would be Munich 2.0. In this situation 
> the Russians will regroup and try another day to conquer Ukraine. The only 
> answer is to continue the fight until the Russians realize that tanks, 
> towed and self-propelled artillery are obsolete against Javalins, INLAWS, 
> etc. and counter-battery artillery. Eventually, the Russian soldiers will 
> become so demoralized that they'll refuse to fight. Putin will likely use 
> chemical weapons and blame the Ukrainians for their use. But it won't be 
> decisive, and IMO tactical nukes will probably not be used. AG
>

I meant  NLAW,   https://special-ops.org/nlaw-the-ultimate-tank-killer/
I don't think the experience of WW2 is particularly relevant to the current 
situation where Russia is the invader. AG

>
> My idea is, how many times can ya kill us, if once suffices? This doesn't 
> mean we turn the other cheek, and yes since Putin + Xi want an arms race, 
> we should oblige them. 
>
> Russian,  Sarmat (ICBM) and and Khinzal (cruise hypersonic) weapons, also 
> a pride booster.Yeah, Cub-er!
>
>
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienroblin/2022/02/08/russia-deploys-hypersonic-missile-to-baltic-in-range-of-nato-capitols/?sh=4401e0be217e
>
> On the Udder Hand said da Cow...
>
>
> https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/07/us-china-russia-biden-hypersonic-missile-defense-pentagon/
>
> I also read a lot from Brian Wang's website Next Big Future for both bio, 
> med, energy, and weapons, foreign policy goings on. He keeps and eye on 
> things. But this too, is a reco from an aggressive schmuck as myself, who 
> looks at things in a nuanced and not necessarily, ideological. Balanced, 
> no, nuanced, yes.  
>
>
>
>
> Nothing humble about you. Sagan was my boss for 18 months. I never claimed 
> he was a friend. What university did you attend? I am a Cornell graduate, 
> School of Arts and Sciences. I had a physics course with Philip Morrison. 
> During the Cuban Miss

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

Ok, thanks for your response, AG. You are forecasting that the EU and or the US 
and Canada will continue to send, antitank and anti-aircraft missiles into 
Ukraine. Are you concerned that this will be successful, even with a Russian 
onslaught against the insertion of these into the Ukraine? Do you see a Russian 
attempt to wreck NATO countries via a conventional roll forward as with the 
Soviets and the Fulda Gap push? The notion that the demoralized Russian 
soldiers just stopping the madness on their own, goes against what the Soviets 
did in WW2. The NKVD has their own barrage battalions of troops to ensure that 
no Russian soldier retreated from the front line. So why not FSB or GRU troops 
today? 
Now using Sarin or Tabun or Soman or VX against the Ukrainians would seemingly 
be countered by the Ukrainian troops fighting in donated tox suits, and the 
strategy would then bring the fighting as quick as possible to the Russian 
troops. This, guaranteeing a mix of those fighting protected versus 
unprotected. I am suspecting that outside of Spetznaz, most Russian draftees 
will no be so protected? 
I will still hold open the possibility of giving Vlad an out, but you could be 
totally accurate regarding the Russkie mindset. I am not sure what 
circumstances would produce an ouster of Vlad, if such is even conceivable? 

-Original Message-
From: Alan Grayson 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Mon, Apr 25, 2022 7:26 pm
Subject: Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:19:07 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

Hmm. You AG obviously haven't seen the state of education today with its 
corrosive, racial, and sexually preferenced faith movements? The mentioning of 
the Missiles of October moment and predicting the outcome is an interesting 
claim. Me, being a wimp, except when its time to retaliate, would have demurred 
from JFK's placing of Jupiter missiles in Turkey. A provocation, yet what do I 
call Khrushchev's walling up of Berlin in 1961? Monday morning quarterbacking 
is what I do, and today is a monday. For Putin, as JC has objected to, I'd 
offer Putin the right to place hypersonic missiles in "Cuber," ah, Cuba like in 
1962. Why? Face saving for Putin with the Russian establishment and population, 
in exchange for Ukraine withdrawal, and a Neutrality agreement, with whomever? 

This won't work in the present situation. Firstly, Putin will never willingly 
withdraw. And it was already tried! Remember the Budapest Memoranum of 1994? 
The Russians can't be trusted, and any agreement allowing any territorial 
concessions would be Munich 2.0. In this situation the Russians will regroup 
and try another day to conquer Ukraine. The only answer is to continue the 
fight until the Russians realize that tanks, towed and self-propelled artillery 
are obsolete against Javalins, INLAWS, etc. and counter-battery artillery. 
Eventually, the Russian soldiers will become so demoralized that they'll refuse 
to fight. Putin will likely use chemical weapons and blame the Ukrainians for 
their use. But it won't be decisive, and IMO tactical nukes will probably not 
be used. AG

My idea is, how many times can ya kill us, if once suffices? This doesn't mean 
we turn the other cheek, and yes since Putin + Xi want an arms race, we should 
oblige them. 
Russian,  Sarmat (ICBM) and and Khinzal (cruise hypersonic) weapons, also a 
pride booster.Yeah, Cub-er!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienroblin/2022/02/08/russia-deploys-hypersonic-missile-to-baltic-in-range-of-nato-capitols/?sh=4401e0be217e
On the Udder Hand said da Cow...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/07/us-china-russia-biden-hypersonic-missile-defense-pentagon/

I also read a lot from Brian Wang's website Next Big Future for both bio, med, 
energy, and weapons, foreign policy goings on. He keeps and eye on things. But 
this too, is a reco from an aggressive schmuck as myself, who looks at things 
in a nuanced and not necessarily, ideological. Balanced, no, nuanced, yes.  

Nothing humble about you. Sagan was my boss for 18 months. I never claimed he 
was a friend. What university did you attend? I am a Cornell graduate, School 
of Arts and Sciences. I had a physics course with Philip Morrison. During the 
Cuban Missile Crisis I correctly predicted the outcome, but still got a 
"gentleman's" C in my course on International Relations. That's Cornell (at its 
worst). AG

-Original Message-
From: Alan Grayson 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Mon, Apr 25, 2022 1:20 pm
Subject: Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 10:55:56 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 12:46 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> Any publications? Any degrees? You must have done SOMETHING!  Time to come 
> clean. AG 

Nothing special. Unlike you I never cleaned to work at JPL and I was never best 
friends with Carl Sagan, I'm just a

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule



On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:19:07 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> Hmm. You AG obviously haven't seen the state of education today with its 
> corrosive, racial, and sexually preferenced faith movements? The 
> mentioning of the Missiles of October moment and predicting the outcome is 
> an interesting claim. Me, being a wimp, except when its time to retaliate, 
> would have demurred from JFK's placing of Jupiter missiles in Turkey. A 
> provocation, yet what do I call Khrushchev's walling up of Berlin in 1961? 
> Monday morning quarterbacking is what I do, and today is a monday. For 
> Putin, as JC has objected to, I'd offer Putin the right to place hypersonic 
> missiles in "Cuber," ah, Cuba like in 1962. Why? Face saving for Putin 
> with the Russian establishment and population, in exchange for Ukraine 
> withdrawal, and a Neutrality agreement, with whomever? 
>

This won't work in the present situation. Firstly, Putin will never 
willingly withdraw. And it was already tried! Remember the Budapest 
Memoranum of 1994? The Russians can't be trusted, and any agreement 
allowing any territorial concessions would be Munich 2.0. In this situation 
the Russians will regroup and try another day to conquer Ukraine. The only 
answer is to continue the fight until the Russians realize that tanks, 
towed and self-propelled artillery are obsolete against Javalins, INLAWS, 
etc. and counter-battery artillery. Eventually, the Russian soldiers will 
become so demoralized that they'll refuse to fight. Putin will likely use 
chemical weapons and blame the Ukrainians for their use. But it won't be 
decisive, and IMO tactical nukes will probably not be used. AG

>
> My idea is, how many times can ya kill us, if once suffices? This doesn't 
> mean we turn the other cheek, and yes since Putin + Xi want an arms race, 
> we should oblige them. 
>
> Russian,  Sarmat (ICBM) and and Khinzal (cruise hypersonic) weapons, also 
> a pride booster.Yeah, Cub-er!
>
>
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienroblin/2022/02/08/russia-deploys-hypersonic-missile-to-baltic-in-range-of-nato-capitols/?sh=4401e0be217e
>
> On the Udder Hand said da Cow...
>
>
> https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/07/us-china-russia-biden-hypersonic-missile-defense-pentagon/
>
> I also read a lot from Brian Wang's website Next Big Future for both bio, 
> med, energy, and weapons, foreign policy goings on. He keeps and eye on 
> things. But this too, is a reco from an aggressive schmuck as myself, who 
> looks at things in a nuanced and not necessarily, ideological. Balanced, 
> no, nuanced, yes.  
>
>
>
>
> Nothing humble about you. Sagan was my boss for 18 months. I never claimed 
> he was a friend. What university did you attend? I am a Cornell graduate, 
> School of Arts and Sciences. I had a physics course with Philip Morrison. 
> During the Cuban Missile Crisis I correctly predicted the outcome, but 
> still got a "gentleman's" C in my course on International Relations. That's 
> Cornell (at its worst). AG
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Grayson 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Mon, Apr 25, 2022 1:20 pm
> Subject: Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule
>
>
> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 10:55:56 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 12:46 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
> *> Any publications? Any degrees? You must have done SOMETHING!  Time to 
> come clean. AG *
>
>
> Nothing special. Unlike you I never cleaned to work at JPL and I was 
> never best friends with Carl Sagan, I'm just a humble electrical engineer 
> and bookworm. But at least I know you need to obtain hypersonic speed to 
> get into orbit, and flying saucer men in Roswell New Mexico do not excite 
> me.  
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
>
>
> Nothing humble about you. Sagan was my boss for 18 months. I never claimed 
> he was a friend. What university did you attend? I am a Cornell graduate, 
> School of Arts and Sciences. I had a physics course with Philip Morrison. 
> During the Cuban Missile Crisis I correctly predicted the outcome, but 
> still got a "gentleman's" C in my course on International Relations. That's 
> Cornell (at its worst). AG
>
>
> csb
>
>
> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c7a6369a-3764-45cf-8f36-f9be563a0c66n%40googlegroups.com

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

2022-04-25 Thread George Kahrimanis

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 4:09:23 AM UTC+3 Bruce wrote:

> Despite Carroll's protestations (and the similar protestations of others), 
> energy cannot be conserved in the multiverse -- each split must duplicate 
> the energy of the whole as many times as there are branches.

Thanks for the citation. From the discussion so far, there seems to be no 
meaning in adding energy from different universes, so this is neither right 
not wrong (therefore, nuts). I think that this idea becomes meaningful only 
if we consider something like the gravitational field of an electron in a 
double-slit interference experiment: Caroll's idea implies that field 
(outside the box) would be as if generated by the electron-as wave, without 
decoherence. I suggest that we look at the consequences of this conclusion, 
to assess the plausibility of the idea.

George K.

-- 
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/771587c8-9d72-4681-ba4a-8051fa52befbn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 2:02 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 8:08 AM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> * > That is true enough, but we do not always measure energy by comparison
>> with some reference energy. Sometimes we use other laws of physics. For
>> example, most of the energy in our immediate environment is mass energy,
>> coming from the relation E = mc^2. So we can consider mass as a surrogate
>> for energy. Mass can routinely be measured by weighing, assuming that the
>> gravitational constant does not change.*
>>
>
> The only reason we think the gravitational constant does not change is
> because when we measure the potential gravitational energy in something
> today against a standard calibration energy we find that we get the same
> number of energy units that we got yesterday when we measured the potential
> gravitational energy it was in against a standard calibration energy.
>

Sure, a spring balance needs to be calibrated against some standard mass.
But we do not calibrate every day. Once the scale is set, we assume that
the spring constant or whatever remains the same, so that recalibration is
not necessary. So if all energies (including mass) drop by 90%, we will be
able to detect this as long as the spring constant does not also change by
this amount. Springs tend to rely on the electromagnetic properties of
metals, and these will not change just because we measure a spin component
in the next room.

To take another simple example, I used a spring balance to compare a mass
against the gravitational field, where I assumed that Newton's constant
does not change on a spin measurement. If all energies (and masses) drop by
50% in each branch of the spin measurement, then the mass of the earth
decreases by 50%, and the local acceleration due to gravity, g, also drops
by 50%. Now consider a simple pendulum: the period of swing is T =
2*pi*sqr(L/g), where L is the length of the pendulum. If g drops by 50%,
the period of the pendulum increases by a factor of sqrt(2). This increase
can easily be measured against a clock that does not rely on local gravity,
such as a spring clock, or a crystal clock.

So the idea that a change in the energy of a branch is not noticeable is
false -- one can always devise an experiment that does not rely on
comparison with standard weights before and after the split. Other physics
comes into play, and there is no suggestion that Newton's constant, for
example, is influenced by our spin measurement, so the increase in the
period of the pendulum is certainly measurable, as is the change in weight
of our bag of flour.

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/CAFxXSLRZ5sQeExN7z_yxGtkcX-8uG9LDwvPVxk3PfPgOmoMTaQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

Hmm. You AG obviously haven't seen the state of education today with its 
corrosive, racial, and sexually preferenced faith movements? The mentioning of 
the Missiles of October moment and predicting the outcome is an interesting 
claim. Me, being a wimp, except when its time to retaliate, would have demurred 
from JFK's placing of Jupiter missiles in Turkey. A provocation, yet what do I 
call Khrushchev's walling up of Berlin in 1961? Monday morning quarterbacking 
is what I do, and today is a monday. For Putin, as JC has objected to, I'd 
offer Putin the right to place hypersonic missiles in "Cuber," ah, Cuba like in 
1962. Why? Face saving for Putin with the Russian establishment and population, 
in exchange for Ukraine withdrawal, and a Neutrality agreement, with whomever? 
My idea is, how many times can ya kill us, if once suffices? This doesn't mean 
we turn the other cheek, and yes since Putin + Xi want an arms race, we should 
oblige them. 
Russian,  Sarmat (ICBM) and and Khinzal (cruise hypersonic) weapons, also a 
pride booster.Yeah, Cub-er!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienroblin/2022/02/08/russia-deploys-hypersonic-missile-to-baltic-in-range-of-nato-capitols/?sh=4401e0be217e
On the Udder Hand said da Cow...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/07/us-china-russia-biden-hypersonic-missile-defense-pentagon/

I also read a lot from Brian Wang's website Next Big Future for both bio, med, 
energy, and weapons, foreign policy goings on. He keeps and eye on things. But 
this too, is a reco from an aggressive schmuck as myself, who looks at things 
in a nuanced and not necessarily, ideological. Balanced, no, nuanced, yes.  

Nothing humble about you. Sagan was my boss for 18 months. I never claimed he 
was a friend. What university did you attend? I am a Cornell graduate, School 
of Arts and Sciences. I had a physics course with Philip Morrison. During the 
Cuban Missile Crisis I correctly predicted the outcome, but still got a 
"gentleman's" C in my course on International Relations. That's Cornell (at its 
worst). AG

-Original Message-
From: Alan Grayson 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Mon, Apr 25, 2022 1:20 pm
Subject: Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 10:55:56 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 12:46 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> Any publications? Any degrees? You must have done SOMETHING!  Time to come 
> clean. AG 

Nothing special. Unlike you I never cleaned to work at JPL and I was never best 
friends with Carl Sagan, I'm just a humble electrical engineer and bookworm. 
But at least I know you need to obtain hypersonic speed to get into orbit, and 
flying saucer men in Roswell New Mexico do not excite me.  
 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

Nothing humble about you. Sagan was my boss for 18 months. I never claimed he 
was a friend. What university did you attend? I am a Cornell graduate, School 
of Arts and Sciences. I had a physics course with Philip Morrison. During the 
Cuban Missile Crisis I correctly predicted the outcome, but still got a 
"gentleman's" C in my course on International Relations. That's Cornell (at its 
worst). AG

csb

-- 
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/c7a6369a-3764-45cf-8f36-f9be563a0c66n%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/1557979400.702112.1650921543612%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

So, with the knowledge of entanglement, and nobody seems sure yet how it really 
works, how sure should we be in a multiverse, where each cosm is Causally 
Disconnected from every other? 
Could be an energy transference, could be, most likely an information highway 
in the sky (Delta Dawn), could be whatever, magic! My claim is we cannot know 
enough to decide because our equipment used to measure phenomena is too puny. 
Whether neutrino catching, or proton slamming, or freezing electrons, or yeah, 
telescopes. 
A universe that is just starting out however, via eternal inflation, versus 
this one, would have higher energy levels and be much smaller and thus, 
expanding outwards like my gut. Disconnection there, as something random or a 
safety feature? Are these all connected, no matter what the age and state? Hmm. 
Perhaps all that is beyond the Hubble Volume, banging about, some 13.7 to 42 5o 
80 billion lightyear's away? Or, maybe not. 

-Original Message-
From: Bruce Kellett 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Sun, Apr 24, 2022 9:09 pm
Subject: Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:28 AM John Clark  wrote:

On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 7:12 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> Maybe because you're mentally retarded? You posted Sean's "explanation" for 
> where the energy comes from to create the world's which infatuate you! If a 
> world has 1% probability of existing according to Born's rule, it has 1% of 
> the original total energy!

I've explained this to you before but that time I used words that an 
intelligent adult should understand, but you didn't, so this time I'll imagine 
I'm speaking to a child with a learning disability, maybe that will work. We've 
known for a long time there's no way to detect the absolute energy level of 
anything, we can only detect the energy difference between two things, but 
there is no way an observer in one universe can compare his energy level with 
an observer in another universe, so the fact that one universe may have 10 
times more energy than another has no observable consequences to anybody in 
either universe. 

This is what Sean Carroll actually says in his book "Something Deeply Hidden":
"Well", replied Alice. "Just think about ordinary textbook quantum mechanics. 
Given a quantum state, we can calculate the total energy it describes. As long 
as the wave function evolves strictly according to the Schrodinger equation, 
that energy is conserved, right?" "Not all worlds are created equal. Think 
about the wave function. When it describes multiple branched worlds, we can 
calculate the total amount of energy by adding up the amount of energy in each 
world, times the weight (the amplitude squared) for that world. When one world 
divides in two, the energy in each world is basically the same as it previously 
was in the single world (as far as anyone living inside is concerned), but 
their contributions to the total energy of the wave function of the universe 
have divided in half, since their amplitudes have decreased. Each world got a 
bit thinner, although its inhabitants can't tell the difference." (page 173)
In other words, Sean is saying that energy conservation works for the 
multiverse, and he implies that it also works in each individual branch. This 
is nonsense --  you can't have both. If energy is conserved over the 
multiverse, then it cannot be conserved in each branch separately, as my 
previous example of a neutron decay indicates. Energy conservation is routinely 
observed and checked in individual branches. No one has ever checked energy 
conservation in the multiverse.
The idea that this energy is conserved in the multiverse derives from the 
observation that the Schrodinger equation is time translation invariant. 
Consequently, there is a definite tension between the application of the 
Schrodinger equation to obtain a multiverse, Noether's theorem, and the routine 
observation that energy is conserved separately in each branch. The trouble 
with Sean's glib response to the question is that in each branch of the 
multiverse, we can measure the energy both before and after the supposed split. 
These energies are found to be equal in the branch, so energy cannot be 
conserved over the multiverse, as Alice in Sean's discussion claims.
Despite Carroll's protestations (and the similar protestations of others), 
energy cannot be conserved in the multiverse -- each split must duplicate the 
energy of the whole as many times as there are branches.
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/CAFxXSLS0umDD0xAr00bywm0HE_6Ukk-y74ACz7%3D86Q_ZygEWpg%40m

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 10:55:56 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 12:46 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
> *> Any publications? Any degrees? You must have done SOMETHING!  Time to 
>> come clean. AG *
>>
>
> Nothing special. Unlike you I never cleaned to work at JPL and I was 
> never best friends with Carl Sagan, I'm just a humble electrical engineer 
> and bookworm. But at least I know you need to obtain hypersonic speed to 
> get into orbit, and flying saucer men in Roswell New Mexico do not excite 
> me.  
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
>

Nothing humble about you. Sagan was my boss for 18 months. I never claimed 
he was a friend. What university did you attend? I am a Cornell graduate, 
School of Arts and Sciences. I had a physics course with Philip Morrison. 
During the Cuban Missile Crisis I correctly predicted the outcome, but 
still got a "gentleman's" C in my course on International Relations. That's 
Cornell (at its worst). AG

>
> csb
>
>
>

-- 
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/c7a6369a-3764-45cf-8f36-f9be563a0c66n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 12:46 PM Alan Grayson 
wrote:

*> Any publications? Any degrees? You must have done SOMETHING!  Time to
> come clean. AG *
>

Nothing special. Unlike you I never cleaned to work at JPL and I was never
best friends with Carl Sagan, I'm just a humble electrical engineer and
bookworm. But at least I know you need to obtain hypersonic speed to get
into orbit, and flying saucer men in Roswell New Mexico do not excite me.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

csb

-- 
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/CAJPayv2MgnKXFMhpopaYjmzMsS8qP74bm2WUvp8Kta%3DyuwnUWw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule



On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 10:05:49 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:31 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
> *> "Alan Grayson" is my pseudo-name of choice,*
>
>
> *Sure it is.  *
>
> *>  and I could prove I was co-author on those papers, but* [...]
>
> *Sure you can.  *
>

Any publications? Any degrees? You must have done SOMETHING!  Time to come 
clean. AG 

> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> ga0
>
>
>
>
>>

-- 
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/f92704b2-bf68-446b-875c-799106f04124n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:31 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:

*> "Alan Grayson" is my pseudo-name of choice,*


*Sure it is.  *

*>  and I could prove I was co-author on those papers, but* [...]


*Sure you can.  *
John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

ga0




>

-- 
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/CAJPayv0AUST3zxrye%2BHp7%2BF2%2B%3D8n7GUQ5HVv9Gm6Q%3DkGOFSpLQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 8:08 AM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*> You appear to be assuming that one measures energy against some
> reference energy. So that if both your reference and the thing you are
> measuring change by the same factor, you do not see any difference.*
>

Yes, there must always be some sort of an energy standard if you're going
to make any sort of energy measurement. That's why utility workers can
safely grab a half million volt power line with both hands provided they
make sure they're not grounded and are at the same voltage potential as the
powerline, their right and left hands are at the same voltage potential so
no current flows between them through their bodies, so the worker feels
nothing and is perfectly safe, but if he were to touch a ground wire he'd
be instantly fried. The same thing would happen if somebody in a high
energy universe touched a wire that led to a lower energy universe, but
fortunately for the inhabitants of both universes there is no way for that
to happen.

* > That is true enough, but we do not always measure energy by comparison
> with some reference energy. Sometimes we use other laws of physics. For
> example, most of the energy in our immediate environment is mass energy,
> coming from the relation E = mc^2. So we can consider mass as a surrogate
> for energy. Mass can routinely be measured by weighing, assuming that the
> gravitational constant does not change.*
>

The only reason we think the gravitational constant does not change is
because when we measure the potential gravitational energy in something
today against a standard calibration energy we find that we get the same
number of energy units that we got yesterday when we measured the potential
gravitational energy it was in against a standard calibration energy. But
if the gravitational potential energy dropped by 90% and the calibration
energy also dropped by 90% then we'd notice no difference and get the same
number of units of energy both yesterday and today.

*> But that standard measure may not simply be another energy or mass. It
> could be the force on a charge in an electric field,*
>

Electrical potential energy and gravitational potential energy are *both*
energy, and if you want to measure either one you're going to need an
energy calibration standard to do it. And the same is true for nuclear
potential energy.

> * > or the measure on a spring balance in the gravitational field.*
>

It doesn't matter what you use, you're going to need an energy calibration
standard because there's just no way to measure the absolute energy of
anything, you can only measure the relative energy.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

87u

-- 
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/CAJPayv0Ogt72vrAr-Pa1E-apNvHSrrXfeg_Gk51oeiU00f_moQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule



On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:09:26 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 1:48 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
> *> While I was at JPL*[...]
>
>
> How odd, JPL is in the habit of hiring people who don't know what any 
> bright 10 year old knows, that you need hypersonic speeds to get into earth 
> orbit, and yet JPL still somehow managed to perform the intricate 
> gravitational calculations necessary to send a probe to Pluto. And I'm not 
> impressed that you managed to find a list of Carl Sagan's papers, anyone 
> with even minimal Internet skills can find them in about 20 seconds, but 
> in all of those papers nobody can find the words "Alan Grayson'' anywhere in 
> them.
>

You can't seem to read and understand simple English. "Alan Grayson" is my 
pseudo-name of choice, and I could prove I was co-author on those papers, 
but why should I indulge an abusive schmuck? AG 

>
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> gas
>
>
>
>>

-- 
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/78a3d167-c854-4410-9e88-ef5da0b4600dn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 7:31 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 9:09 PM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> * > The trouble with Sean's glib response to the question is that in each
>> branch of the multiverse, we can measure the energy both before and after
>> the supposed split.*
>>
>
> Neither before or after the split are you measuring the absolute total
> energy in anything, in any energy measurement you're measuring the relative
> energy of something against a standard measure. If you say a particle has X
> units of energy calibrated against some standard measure, then after a
> measurement (and thus after a split) if you want to measure the energy in
> the decay products of the particle you do it by comparing them against the
> same standard measure, but *that's impossible* because any act of
> measurement splits a universe. So both the energy in the decay products and
> the energy of the standard measure of energy are decreased by 1/2 (or by
> however many times the universe splits), so you still get  X units of
> Energy and the world still looks the same to you despite it having only
> half the total absolute energy. It all comes down to the fact that you
> never measure the absolute energy of something, you always measure the
> relative energy.
>

You appear to be assuming that one measures energy against some reference
energy. So that if both your reference and the thing you are
measuring change by the same factor, you do not see any difference. That is
true enough, but we do not always measure energy by comparison with some
reference energy. Sometimes we use other laws of physics. For example, most
of the energy in our immediate environment is mass energy, coming from the
relation E = mc^2. So we can consider mass as a surrogate for energy. Mass
can routinely be measured by weighing, assuming that the gravitational
constant does not change. So if all energies halve, say due to a spin
measurement, and we weigh our object before and after the split, in order
to get the same result on the scales, the force due to gravity has to
double in order for half the mass to give the same reading as before. But
the force due to gravity depends on the local acceleration, g, and that
depends on the mass of the earth, which also halves in this scenario. So,
rather than the force of gravity doubling, it also halves, and the reading
on our scales after the split is only 1/4 what it was before. If you think
that such a change in the mass energy around us would not be noticeable,
then you are not looking closely enough.

> *If I want to check energy conservation in neutron decay, I compare the
>> mass-energy of the original neutron to the sum of the mass-energies of the
>> decay products plus any kinetic energy of these decay products.*
>
>
> You left out a few steps. You compare the mass-energy of the original
> neutron against a standard calibration measure, and then you measure the
> mass-energies of the decay products plus any kinetic energy of these decay
> products against a standard measure.
>

But that standard measure may not simply be another energy or mass. It
could be the force on a charge in an electric field, or the measure on a
spring balance in the gravitational field. If the local change in energy is
to go unnoticed, then all the laws of physics must change in concert. It
does not seem that the Schrodinger equation itself is able to accomplish
this.

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/CAFxXSLRsUmtnyUYWGHQQV6Zyddw_%3DvB%3DJAnJs8hr9932LkAmjA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 1:48 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:

*> While I was at JPL*[...]


How odd, JPL is in the habit of hiring people who don't know what any
bright 10 year old knows, that you need hypersonic speeds to get into earth
orbit, and yet JPL still somehow managed to perform the intricate
gravitational calculations necessary to send a probe to Pluto. And I'm not
impressed that you managed to find a list of Carl Sagan's papers, anyone
with even minimal Internet skills can find them in about 20 seconds, but in
all of those papers nobody can find the words "Alan Grayson'' anywhere in
them.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

gas



>

-- 
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/CAJPayv0vhOMcPidda-bcF2bqe4ua5iyiZaLnVT4C1icQRc98Cw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 9:09 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> This is what Sean Carroll actually says in his book "Something Deeply
> Hidden":
>
> "*Well", replied Alice. "Just think about ordinary textbook quantum
> mechanics. Given a quantum state, we can calculate the total energy it
> describes. As long as the wave function evolves strictly according to the
> Schrodinger equation, that energy is conserved, right?" *
> *"Not all worlds are created equal. Think about the wave function. When it
> describes multiple branched worlds, we can calculate the total amount of
> energy by adding up the amount of energy in each world, times the weight
> (the amplitude squared) for that world. When one world divides in two, the
> energy in each world is basically the same as it previously was in the
> single world (as far as anyone living inside is concerned), but their
> contributions to the total energy of the wave function of the universe have
> divided in half, since their amplitudes have decreased. Each world got a
> bit thinner, although its inhabitants can't tell the difference.*" (page
> 173)
>
> In other words, Sean is saying that energy conservation works for the
> multiverse, and he implies that it also works in each individual branch.
> This is nonsense --  you can't have both. If energy is conserved over the
> multiverse, then it cannot be conserved in each branch separately,
>

Nonsense.  You can if, as Sean Carroll says you  "add up the amount of
energy in each world, times the weight (the amplitude squared) for that
world". I think you've forgotten your first year calculus, it's possible to
add up an infinite number of numbers and get a finite result.

>* Energy conservation is routinely observed and checked in individual
> branches.*
>

Correct.

* > No one has ever checked energy conservation in the multiverse.*
>

Correct again, there is no experimental confirmation that energy is
conserved in the multiverse, and it would violate no law of logic if it was
not, but most versions of Many Worlds assume energy is conserved.  And
nothing in the above contradicts what Sean Carroll said.

*> The idea that this energy is conserved in the multiverse derives from
> the observation that the Schrodinger equation is time translation
> invariant.*
>

With cosmology you can't assume Schrodinger's equation tells you all you
need to know because it says absolutely nothing about gravity and doesn't
include General Relativity. And we don't even know for a fact that the laws
of physics are time translation invariant, not if you're talking about
billions of years or a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a
second after the big bang during the era of cosmic inflation

* > The trouble with Sean's glib response to the question is that in each
> branch of the multiverse, we can measure the energy both before and after
> the supposed split.*
>

Neither before or after the split are you measuring the absolute total
energy in anything, in any energy measurement you're measuring the relative
energy of something against a standard measure. If you say a particle has X
units of energy calibrated against some standard measure, then after a
measurement (and thus after a split) if you want to measure the energy in
the decay products of the particle you do it by comparing them against the
same standard measure, but *that's impossible* because any act of
measurement splits a universe. So both the energy in the decay products and
the energy of the standard measure of energy are decreased by 1/2 (or by
however many times the universe splits), so you still get  X units of
Energy and the world still looks the same to you despite it having only
half the total absolute energy. It all comes down to the fact that you
never measure the absolute energy of something, you always measure the
relative energy.

> *If I want to check energy conservation in neutron decay, I compare the
> mass-energy of the original neutron to the sum of the mass-energies of the
> decay products plus any kinetic energy of these decay products.*

You left out a few steps. You compare the mass-energy of the original
neutron against a standard calibration measure, and then you measure the
mass-energies of the decay products plus any kinetic energy of these decay
products against a standard measure. If the energy of the decay products
and the energy of the standard measure have both been decreased by 1/2 then
you're going to get the same units of energy both before and after the
measurement.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

7ff

-- 
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

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule



On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 11:32:31 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 6:28:02 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 7:12 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>> > *Maybe because you're mentally retarded? You posted Sean's 
>>> "explanation" for where the energy comes from to create the world's which 
>>> infatuate you! If a world has 1% probability of existing according to 
>>> Born's rule, it has 1% of the original total energy!*
>>>
>>
>> I've explained this to you before but that time I used words that an 
>> intelligent adult should understand, but you didn't, so this time I'll 
>> imagine I'm speaking to a child with a learning disability, maybe that will 
>> work. We've known for a long time there's no way to detect the absolute 
>> energy level of anything, we can only detect the energy difference between 
>> two things, but there is no way an observer in one universe can compare his 
>> energy level with an observer in another universe, so the fact that one 
>> universe may have 10 times more energy than another has no observable 
>> consequences to anybody in either universe. 
>>
>> > *This is pure genius, from Caltech!*
>>>
>>
>> Any professor of theoretical physics at Caltech is one hell of a lot 
>> smarter than you Mr. Carl Sagan co-author, Mr. 
>> Flying-Saucer-Men-Landed-In-Roswell-New-Mexico, And unlike you I'm damn 
>> sure he knows enough grade school physics to understand that you need to 
>> obtain hyper sonic speed to get into Earth orbit. 
>>
>
> I was thinking of level flight at supersonic speed, not escape velocity. 
>
> As for papers with CS, there was a third one, where Carl promised to put 
> my name first. It involved the atmosphere of Jupiter, and a series 
> solution, the convergence of which in closed form that I determined. Over 
> the next year I asked him when he would write it. He was always affirmative 
> but did nothing, which left a lasting negative impression. I would have 
> preferred his candidness; possibly that the numerical results, obtained by 
> Morrison, didn't reveal any interesting physics. I never disclosed my 
> serious dissatisfaction, and later had him write a letter of recommendation 
> for a position at JPL. I got the job and worked there from 1984 to 1998 on 
> the Galileo Project, eventually becoming the Flight Software Cognizant 
> Engineer. The software never failed, except in very few trivial instances. 
> AG
>

While I was at JPL, I wrote a 100 page paper on Strategic Arms Control. The 
*Foreign 
Polic*y journal wanted to edit and publish it. I should have agreed, but 
refused the offer, preferring instead to publish it in *Foreign Affairs,* 
but that journal showed no interest. That was probably the dumbist thing I 
ever did. AG

>
>>  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
>> 
>> fgm
>>
>>
>>

-- 
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/ab41951e-b1a9-4030-9f74-8da70b1c6da8n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 6:28:02 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 7:12 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
> > *Maybe because you're mentally retarded? You posted Sean's 
>> "explanation" for where the energy comes from to create the world's which 
>> infatuate you! If a world has 1% probability of existing according to 
>> Born's rule, it has 1% of the original total energy!*
>>
>
> I've explained this to you before but that time I used words that an 
> intelligent adult should understand, but you didn't, so this time I'll 
> imagine I'm speaking to a child with a learning disability, maybe that will 
> work. We've known for a long time there's no way to detect the absolute 
> energy level of anything, we can only detect the energy difference between 
> two things, but there is no way an observer in one universe can compare his 
> energy level with an observer in another universe, so the fact that one 
> universe may have 10 times more energy than another has no observable 
> consequences to anybody in either universe. 
>
> > *This is pure genius, from Caltech!*
>>
>
> Any professor of theoretical physics at Caltech is one hell of a lot 
> smarter than you Mr. Carl Sagan co-author, Mr. 
> Flying-Saucer-Men-Landed-In-Roswell-New-Mexico, And unlike you I'm damn 
> sure he knows enough grade school physics to understand that you need to 
> obtain hyper sonic speed to get into Earth orbit. 
>

I was thinking of level flight at supersonic speed, not escape velocity. 

As for papers with CS, there was a third one, where Carl promised to put my 
name first. It involved the atmosphere of Jupiter, and a series solution, 
the convergence of which in closed form that I determined. Over the next 
year I asked him when he would write it. He was always affirmative but did 
nothing, which left a lasting negative impression. I would have preferred 
his candidness; possibly that the numerical results, obtained by Morrison, 
didn't reveal any interesting physics. I never disclosed my 
dissatisfaction, and later had him write a letter of recommendation for a 
position at JPL. I got the job and worked there from 1984 to 1998 on the 
Galileo Project, eventually becoming the Flight Software Cognizant 
Engineer. The software never failed, except in very few trivial instances. 
AG

>
>  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> fgm
>
>
>

-- 
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/7db2d7bf-b6a0-4d24-92a8-7970ad2a0d73n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule



On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 6:28:02 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 7:12 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
> > *Maybe because you're mentally retarded? You posted Sean's 
>> "explanation" for where the energy comes from to create the world's which 
>> infatuate you! If a world has 1% probability of existing according to 
>> Born's rule, it has 1% of the original total energy!*
>>
>
> I've explained this to you before but that time I used words that an 
> intelligent adult should understand, but you didn't, so this time I'll 
> imagine I'm speaking to a child with a learning disability, maybe that will 
> work. We've known for a long time there's no way to detect the absolute 
> energy level of anything, we can only detect the energy difference between 
> two things, but there is no way an observer in one universe can compare his 
> energy level with an observer in another universe, so the fact that one 
> universe may have 10 times more energy than another has no observable 
> consequences to anybody in either universe.
>

Then Sean ought to clean up his language. What he writes is surely 
consistent with my interpretation. AG 

>
> > *This is pure genius, from Caltech!*
>>
>
> Any professor of theoretical physics at Caltech is one hell of a lot 
> smarter than you Mr. Carl Sagan co-author, Mr. 
> Flying-Saucer-Men-Landed-In-Roswell-New-Mexico, And unlike you I'm damn 
> sure he knows enough grade school physics to understand that you need to 
> obtain hyper sonic speed to get into Earth orbit. 
>

I agree that Sean is smarter than me. But what you miss is that at the same 
time he's considerably dumber than me! 

You keep obsessing about my professional relationship with Sagan, and to 
what end? I'm the one who faded into (Internet) obscurity, and you have 
enough information to know that my citations are accurate. So get some 
maturity and STFU. BTW, it matters nothing to me about your skepticism 
about the Roswell Incident. Opinions can differ. But what do you think US 
Navy pilots were pursuing fairly recently? AG 

>
>  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> fgm
>
>
>

-- 
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/a673de16-6bb8-42df-82ce-9b0f7f4b3f95n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

2022-04-24 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:28 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 7:12 PM Alan Grayson 
> wrote:
>
> > *Maybe because you're mentally retarded? You posted Sean's
>> "explanation" for where the energy comes from to create the world's which
>> infatuate you! If a world has 1% probability of existing according to
>> Born's rule, it has 1% of the original total energy!*
>>
>
> I've explained this to you before but that time I used words that an
> intelligent adult should understand, but you didn't, so this time I'll
> imagine I'm speaking to a child with a learning disability, maybe that will
> work. We've known for a long time there's no way to detect the absolute
> energy level of anything, we can only detect the energy difference between
> two things, but there is no way an observer in one universe can compare his
> energy level with an observer in another universe, so the fact that one
> universe may have 10 times more energy than another has no observable
> consequences to anybody in either universe.
>

This is what Sean Carroll actually says in his book "Something Deeply
Hidden":

"Well", replied Alice. "Just think about ordinary textbook quantum
mechanics. Given a quantum state, we can calculate the total energy it
describes. As long as the wave function evolves strictly according to the
Schrodinger equation, that energy is conserved, right?" 
"Not all worlds are created equal. Think about the wave function. When it
describes multiple branched worlds, we can calculate the total amount of
energy by adding up the amount of energy in each world, times the weight
(the amplitude squared) for that world. When one world divides in two, the
energy in each world is basically the same as it previously was in the
single world (as far as anyone living inside is concerned), but their
contributions to the total energy of the wave function of the universe have
divided in half, since their amplitudes have decreased. Each world got a
bit thinner, although its inhabitants can't tell the difference." (page 173)

In other words, Sean is saying that energy conservation works for the
multiverse, and he implies that it also works in each individual branch.
This is nonsense --  you can't have both. If energy is conserved over the
multiverse, then it cannot be conserved in each branch separately, as my
previous example of a neutron decay indicates. Energy conservation is
routinely observed and checked in individual branches. No one has ever
checked energy conservation in the multiverse.

The idea that this energy is conserved in the multiverse derives from the
observation that the Schrodinger equation is time translation invariant.
Consequently, there is a definite tension between the application of the
Schrodinger equation to obtain a multiverse, Noether's theorem, and the
routine observation that energy is conserved separately in each branch. The
trouble with Sean's glib response to the question is that in each branch of
the multiverse, we can measure the energy both before and after the
supposed split. These energies are found to be equal in the branch, so
energy cannot be conserved over the multiverse, as Alice in Sean's
discussion claims.

Despite Carroll's protestations (and the similar protestations of others),
energy cannot be conserved in the multiverse -- each split must duplicate
the energy of the whole as many times as there are branches.

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/CAFxXSLS0umDD0xAr00bywm0HE_6Ukk-y74ACz7%3D86Q_ZygEWpg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

2022-04-24 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 7:12 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> *Maybe because you're mentally retarded? You posted Sean's "explanation"
> for where the energy comes from to create the world's which infatuate you!
> If a world has 1% probability of existing according to Born's rule, it has
> 1% of the original total energy!*
>

I've explained this to you before but that time I used words that an
intelligent adult should understand, but you didn't, so this time I'll
imagine I'm speaking to a child with a learning disability, maybe that will
work. We've known for a long time there's no way to detect the absolute
energy level of anything, we can only detect the energy difference between
two things, but there is no way an observer in one universe can compare his
energy level with an observer in another universe, so the fact that one
universe may have 10 times more energy than another has no observable
consequences to anybody in either universe.

> *This is pure genius, from Caltech!*
>

Any professor of theoretical physics at Caltech is one hell of a lot
smarter than you Mr. Carl Sagan co-author, Mr.
Flying-Saucer-Men-Landed-In-Roswell-New-Mexico, And unlike you I'm damn
sure he knows enough grade school physics to understand that you need to
obtain hyper sonic speed to get into Earth orbit.

 John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

fgm

-- 
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/CAJPayv08b2B42ic2AZ-sPJyA89gaNzB_cbcbPXp4GA3cN3rb%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

2022-04-24 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:12 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:34:34 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 2:18 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>> *I get it. No problem with those bridges. After all, Sean Carroll
>>> endorses it and he's on the facuty of Caltech! AG *
>>
>>
>> Well I don't get it, I have no idea what you're talking about.
>>
>
> Maybe because you're mentally retarded? You posted Sean's "explanation"
> for where the energy comes from to create the world's which infatuate you!
> If a world has 1% probability of existing according to Born's rule, it has
> 1% of the original total energy! This is pure genius, from Caltech! He must
> have gotten this from the SE, right? AG
>

Yes, the idea is complete nuts. If I want to check energy conservation in
neutron decay, I compare the mass-energy of the original neutron to the sum
of the mass-energies of the decay products plus any kinetic energy of these
decay products. I want to do this for a decay in a time period where the
probability of decay is 1%. According to the division of energy according
to the Born probabilities, my check of energy conservation will fail: I
find that the decay products have only 1% of the initial energy. So, far
from protecting energy conservation in the MWI splitting process, all that
has been achieved is a demonstration that energy is never conserved in any
quantum process. As stated, this is nuts!

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/CAFxXSLTS_tOOJaNKCwRYAvPeh%3DMc%3DUwgd1ODKVZcEgt-z%3DpwMA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:34:34 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 2:18 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
> *I get it. No problem with those bridges. After all, Sean Carroll endorses 
>> it and he's on the facuty of Caltech! AG *
>
>
> Well I don't get it, I have no idea what you're talking about. 
>

Maybe because you're mentally retarded? You posted Sean's "explanation" for 
where the energy comes from to create the world's which infatuate you! If a 
world has 1% probability of existing according to Born's rule, it has 1% of 
the original total energy! This is pure genius, from Caltech! He must have 
gotten this from the SE, right? AG 

> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> kuq
>
>
>
>
>>

-- 
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/c59eb4eb-d349-4a16-8f3c-18c2232c454dn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

2022-04-24 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 2:18 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

*I get it. No problem with those bridges. After all, Sean Carroll endorses
> it and he's on the facuty of Caltech! AG *


Well I don't get it, I have no idea what you're talking about.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

kuq




>

-- 
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/CAJPayv2veXPotG0K-c_X_VNaDLT%2BkYr%3D8HF6xtptusgxtnLtgg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule



On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 4:09:34 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 3:56:47 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 5:48 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>> *> Suppose I told you I am the obscure one, having faded from my previous 
>>> glory of working the Great One, Carl Sagan? Would that help?*
>>>
>>
>> It might, if you didn't just tell me but gave me one shred of evidence to 
>> indicate you actually are Edward H Greenberg, but you have never even come 
>> close to doing so. 
>>  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
>> 
>>
>  
> What kind of evidence would satisfy you? I'll consider it, but only IF you 
> solve the bridge problem, or failing that admit that Sean's solution is 
> completely delusional. AG 
>

I get it. No problem with those bridges. After all, Sean Carroll endorses 
it and he's on the facuty of Caltech! 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/65ecdbf0-c19f-48d9-ad7c-3fd1382f8b87n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule



On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 3:56:47 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 5:48 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
> *> Suppose I told you I am the obscure one, having faded from my previous 
>> glory of working the Great One, Carl Sagan? Would that help?*
>>
>
> It might, if you didn't just tell me but gave me one shred of evidence to 
> indicate you actually are Edward H Greenberg, but you have never even come 
> close to doing so. 
>  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
>
 
What kind of evidence would satisfy you? I'll consider it, but only IF you 
solve the bridge problem, or failing that admit that Sean's solution is 
completely delusional. 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/3d10546e-d88b-4919-84e0-98e7a99eb010n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 5:48 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

*> Suppose I told you I am the obscure one, having faded from my previous
> glory of working the Great One, Carl Sagan? Would that help?*
>

It might, if you didn't just tell me but gave me one shred of evidence to
indicate you actually are Edward H Greenberg, but you have never even come
close to doing so.
 John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

ghe

-- 
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/CAJPayv2%3DyyfPVZJ8rKKo85EpXrVLGnWSeZqVzrmu5dOvZ2WRVA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 3:30:46 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 5:22 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
> *> You seem obsessed with this issue.  More important is the bridge issue 
>> as it effects the MWI. AG*
>>
>
> Yeah, if I had been caught telling a whopper as large as the one you told 
> I'd want to change the subject too.
>

Suppose I told you I am the obscure one, having faded from my previous 
glory of working the Great One, Carl Sagan? Would that help? Actually I 
wasn't that impressed with the Morrison paper, but maybe I should have 
been! At the time I didn't appreciate the difficulty of getting any physics 
from those blurry images. AG

> r4x
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
>
>
>>

-- 
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/2d63aaf6-023b-4923-bacc-c6074852e80dn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 5:22 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

*> You seem obsessed with this issue.  More important is the bridge issue
> as it effects the MWI. AG*
>

Yeah, if I had been caught telling a whopper as large as the one you told I
'd want to change the subject too.
r4x
John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis



>

-- 
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/CAJPayv2oW43NZYdM6sRiRiUDjU9bR4M4-%2BB6k%2BRuO%2BkqdC4o3Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule



On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 3:04:08 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 4:17 PM Alan Grayson  wrot
>
>  
>
>> Those two papers were published around 54 years ago, so their references 
>> aren't at my fingertips.
>>
>
> They haven't been at your fingertips for a very long time, I first asked for 
> them about  10 years ago when you first made that claim..  
>
> The titles were, "The Martian Wave of Darkening and Related Phenomena",
>>
>
> Almost right , the real title, is  "A statistical analysis of the Martian 
> wave of darkening and related phenomena", so you must be either James B 
> Polack, Edward H Greenberg, or Carl Sagan himself who faked his own death 
> for some reason. 
>
>> *> and "Hypersensitization of Infrared Sensitive Plates (or Emulsions)".*
>>
>  
> Carl Sagan did not write this paper David Morrison and Edward H Greenberg 
> did, so who the hell is  Alan Grayson? Edward H Greenberg is the only one 
> of these people who seems to have slipped into complete obscurity. There is 
> a Edward H Greenberg who is a gynecologist in Fort Lauderdale Florida, 
> there's a Edward H Greenberg who died in 2010 at the age of 93, there's a 
> Edward H Greenberg who died in 1997 at the age of 87, and there is a a 
> Edward H Greenberg who died in 1967 at the age of 84. That's all even the 
> best search engines on the Internet know about Edward H Greenberg. So which 
> Edward H Greenberg are you?
>

Since the 1967 paper was co-authored by Sagan and Pollack, why do you 
conclude that Sagan faked his death, when that occurred in 1996 (and 
Pollack in 1994)? You seem obsessed with this issue.  More important is the 
bridge issue as it effects the MWI. AG

>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> ghe
> v
>

-- 
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/54512f44-c8a2-47b8-8432-d08db9cfb3b2n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 4:17 PM Alan Grayson  wrot



> Those two papers were published around 54 years ago, so their references
> aren't at my fingertips.
>

They haven't been at your fingertips for a very long time, I first asked for
them about  10 years ago when you first made that claim..

The titles were, "The Martian Wave of Darkening and Related Phenomena",
>

Almost right , the real title, is  "A statistical analysis of the Martian
wave of darkening and related phenomena", so you must be either James B
Polack, Edward H Greenberg, or Carl Sagan himself who faked his own death
for some reason.

> *> and "Hypersensitization of Infrared Sensitive Plates (or Emulsions)".*
>

Carl Sagan did not write this paper David Morrison and Edward H Greenberg
did, so who the hell is  Alan Grayson? Edward H Greenberg is the only one
of these people who seems to have slipped into complete obscurity. There is
a Edward H Greenberg who is a gynecologist in Fort Lauderdale Florida,
there's a Edward H Greenberg who died in 2010 at the age of 93, there's a
Edward H Greenberg who died in 1997 at the age of 87, and there is a a
Edward H Greenberg who died in 1967 at the age of 84. That's all even the
best search engines on the Internet know about Edward H Greenberg. So which
Edward H Greenberg are you?

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

ghe
v

-- 
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/CAJPayv2cnf009jFf5_X4CzFRYzc%2Ba0Qa61imU5dYRXuzAxFyMg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule



On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 2:17:00 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 1:40:16 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 2:35 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>> *> As for the Sagan issue, as I distinctly recall that I posted the 
>>> citations to those articles,*
>>>
>>
>> I distinctly remember asking you over and over and over for a link to the 
>> journal articles (at least 2 you said) that you claim to have written with 
>> Sagan, BUT I most certainly do *NOT* remember you actually doing so. But 
>> it's easy enough to settle this issue, just post a link to these wonderful 
>> papers you claim to have written with Sagan right now.
>>  
>>
>>> *> and a second paper. possibly just with Sagan or just with Morrison, 
>>> in 1967 or 1968.*
>>>
>>
>> You can't seem to get your stories straight. So now you can't even 
>> remember who you wrote the paper with in addition to not remembering the 
>> topic of the paper, nor exactly where or when it was published. It 
>> must've been a very forgettable paper. 
>>
>> > *David Morrison (check him out on Wiki)*
>>
>>
>> I'm sure Wikipedia is the place where you found the name "David Morrison", 
>> and I'm sure he wrote a paper with Carl Sagan. I am also sure that Carl 
>> Sagan would not have wanted to co-write an astrophysical journal paper with 
>> somebody who didn't even know you needed to achieve hypersonic speed to get 
>> into orbit. 
>>
>> *> And No, I wasn't at Harvard,*
>>>
>>
>> What a surprise!  
>>  
>>
>>> > *but working at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, located at 
>>> 67 Garden Street, in Cambridge MA.*
>>>
>>
>> Wow, you must be telling the truth because it would be impossible for you 
>> to know what the address of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory was 
>> unless you once worked there, as it is well known that the Smithsonian 
>> keeps its address top-secret, tourists only find it by blindly stumbling 
>> around and coming across it by sheer chance. 
>>
>> > *One or both were printed in The Astronomical Journal. I also told you 
>>> that my real name is NOT Grayson,*
>>>
>>
>> And my real name is not John K Clark but is Albert Einstein, I'm getting 
>> a little old these days but I've published all sorts of wonderful 
>> scientific papers, although I can't now remember the topics of a single one 
>> of them.
>>   
>> Mr. Mystery Man, if Alan Grayson is not your real name then you, whoever 
>> you are, have presented absolutely no evidence, much less proof, that you 
>> ever wrote a paper with Carl Sagan or with anybody else, zero zilch nada 
>> goose egg. But you have inadvertently presented plenty of circumstantial 
>> evidence that you could not possibly have. 
>>
>> *> As for Roswell, for someone who firmly believes in the most 
>>> fantastical and improbable interpretation of QM,*
>>>
>>
>> If I'm a fool for believeing in Many Worlds then I'm in good company 
>> because among physicists it's the second most popular quantum 
>> interpretation, right after shut up and calculate.  
>>
>> > *Do you have a clue, or do you just like to demonstrate how closed you 
>>> are to unusual phenomena?*
>>
>>
>> Yep, I'm communicating with a very unusual phenomenon right now.  
>>
>
> You're a sad case, indeed. Those two papers were published around 54 years 
> ago, so their references aren't at my fingertips. The titles were, "The 
> Martian Wave of Darkening and Related Phenomena", and "Hypersensitization 
> of Infrared Sensitive Plates (or Emulsions)". I recall that Carl really 
> liked this second paper, presumably because in those days it was hard to 
> observe anything planetary in great detail. We increased the sensitivity by 
> a factor of 10, possibly more. The first was with Sagan and Morrison, and 
> the second was just with Morrison, IIRC. The first was published in The 
> Astronomical Journal, and I can't recall offhand where the second was 
> published. When I gave you the address of the SAO, I internally predicted 
> your dumb response and wasn't surprised. And Yes, you're a fool for 
> believing in MWI, apparently because other fools share your belief. But 
> MANY prominent scientists do NOT share that belief, such as the late Steven 
> Weinberg. BTW, if the energy of other worlds depends on their probability 
> of occurring, as Sean Carroll alleges, does gravity remain the same while 
> the bridges don't collapse, or do the cars using them mysteriously lose 
> mass according to Born's rule? AG
>

"A Statistical Analysis of the Martian Wave of Darkening and Related 
Phenomena", Planetary and Space Science, 15, (1967) 817-24

"Hypersenitization of Infrared-sensitive Photographic Emulsions", The 
Astronomical Journal, 73, (1968) 518-21

> vyn
>>
>> vup
>>
>

-- 
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

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule



On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 1:40:16 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 2:35 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
> *> As for the Sagan issue, as I distinctly recall that I posted the 
>> citations to those articles,*
>>
>
> I distinctly remember asking you over and over and over for a link to the 
> journal articles (at least 2 you said) that you claim to have written with 
> Sagan, BUT I most certainly do *NOT* remember you actually doing so. But 
> it's easy enough to settle this issue, just post a link to these wonderful 
> papers you claim to have written with Sagan right now.
>  
>
>> *> and a second paper. possibly just with Sagan or just with Morrison, in 
>> 1967 or 1968.*
>>
>
> You can't seem to get your stories straight. So now you can't even 
> remember who you wrote the paper with in addition to not remembering the 
> topic of the paper, nor exactly where or when it was published. It 
> must've been a very forgettable paper. 
>
> > *David Morrison (check him out on Wiki)*
>
>
> I'm sure Wikipedia is the place where you found the name "David Morrison", 
> and I'm sure he wrote a paper with Carl Sagan. I am also sure that Carl 
> Sagan would not have wanted to co-write an astrophysical journal paper with 
> somebody who didn't even know you needed to achieve hypersonic speed to get 
> into orbit. 
>
> *> And No, I wasn't at Harvard,*
>>
>
> What a surprise!  
>  
>
>> > *but working at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, located at 
>> 67 Garden Street, in Cambridge MA.*
>>
>
> Wow, you must be telling the truth because it would be impossible for you 
> to know what the address of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory was 
> unless you once worked there, as it is well known that the Smithsonian 
> keeps its address top-secret, tourists only find it by blindly stumbling 
> around and coming across it by sheer chance. 
>
> > *One or both were printed in The Astronomical Journal. I also told you 
>> that my real name is NOT Grayson,*
>>
>
> And my real name is not John K Clark but is Albert Einstein, I'm getting a 
> little old these days but I've published all sorts of wonderful scientific 
> papers, although I can't now remember the topics of a single one of them.
>   
> Mr. Mystery Man, if Alan Grayson is not your real name then you, whoever 
> you are, have presented absolutely no evidence, much less proof, that you 
> ever wrote a paper with Carl Sagan or with anybody else, zero zilch nada 
> goose egg. But you have inadvertently presented plenty of circumstantial 
> evidence that you could not possibly have. 
>
> *> As for Roswell, for someone who firmly believes in the most fantastical 
>> and improbable interpretation of QM,*
>>
>
> If I'm a fool for believeing in Many Worlds then I'm in good company 
> because among physicists it's the second most popular quantum 
> interpretation, right after shut up and calculate.  
>
> > *Do you have a clue, or do you just like to demonstrate how closed you 
>> are to unusual phenomena?*
>
>
> Yep, I'm communicating with a very unusual phenomenon right now.  
>

You're a sad case, indeed. Those two papers were published around 54 years 
ago, so their references aren't at my fingertips. The titles were, "The 
Martian Wave of Darkening and Related Phenomena", and "Hypersensitization 
of Infrared Sensitive Plates (or Emulsions)". I recall that Carl really 
liked this second paper, presumably because in those days it was hard to 
observe anything planetary in great detail. We increased the sensitivity by 
a factor of 10, possibly more. The first was with Sagan and Morrison, and 
the second was just with Morrison, IIRC. The first was published in The 
Astronomical Journal, and I can't recall offhand where the second was 
published. When I gave you the address of the SAO, I internally predicted 
your dumb response and wasn't surprised. And Yes, you're a fool for 
believing in MWI, apparently because other fools share your belief. But 
MANY prominent scientists do NOT share that belief, such as the late Steven 
Weinberg. BTW, if the energy of other worlds depends on their probability 
of occurring, as Sean Carroll alleges, does gravity remain the same while 
the bridges don't collapse, or do the cars using them mysteriously lose 
mass according to Born's rule? AG

>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> vyn
>
> vup
>

-- 
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/4a0f-1dfa-4e63-bc27-d461dd897b2an%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 2:35 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

*> As for the Sagan issue, as I distinctly recall that I posted the
> citations to those articles,*
>

I distinctly remember asking you over and over and over for a link to the
journal articles (at least 2 you said) that you claim to have written with
Sagan, BUT I most certainly do *NOT* remember you actually doing so. But
it's easy enough to settle this issue, just post a link to these wonderful
papers you claim to have written with Sagan right now.

> *> and a second paper. possibly just with Sagan or just with Morrison, in
> 1967 or 1968.*
>

You can't seem to get your stories straight. So now you can't even remember
who you wrote the paper with in addition to not remembering the topic of
the paper, nor exactly where or when it was published. It must've been a
very forgettable paper.

> *David Morrison (check him out on Wiki)*

I'm sure Wikipedia is the place where you found the name "David Morrison",
and I'm sure he wrote a paper with Carl Sagan. I am also sure that Carl
Sagan would not have wanted to co-write an astrophysical journal paper with
somebody who didn't even know you needed to achieve hypersonic speed to get
into orbit.

*> And No, I wasn't at Harvard,*
>

What a surprise!

> > *but working at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, located at
> 67 Garden Street, in Cambridge MA.*
>

Wow, you must be telling the truth because it would be impossible for you
to know what the address of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory was
unless you once worked there, as it is well known that the Smithsonian
keeps its address top-secret, tourists only find it by blindly stumbling
around and coming across it by sheer chance.

> *One or both were printed in The Astronomical Journal. I also told you
> that my real name is NOT Grayson,*
>

And my real name is not John K Clark but is Albert Einstein, I'm getting a
little old these days but I've published all sorts of wonderful scientific
papers, although I can't now remember the topics of a single one of them.

Mr. Mystery Man, if Alan Grayson is not your real name then you, whoever
you are, have presented absolutely no evidence, much less proof, that you
ever wrote a paper with Carl Sagan or with anybody else, zero zilch nada
goose egg. But you have inadvertently presented plenty of circumstantial
evidence that you could not possibly have.

*> As for Roswell, for someone who firmly believes in the most fantastical
> and improbable interpretation of QM,*
>

If I'm a fool for believeing in Many Worlds then I'm in good company
because among physicists it's the second most popular quantum
interpretation, right after shut up and calculate.

> *Do you have a clue, or do you just like to demonstrate how closed you
> are to unusual phenomena?*

Yep, I'm communicating with a very unusual phenomenon right now.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

vyn

vup

-- 
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/CAJPayv0brzNy%2BzndG8nu-3u%2B5eG9Dz4cczRONiQN1672rqv-gQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 11:45:08 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 11:05 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
>  Schrödinger's Equation is time independent, 
>

 *>>> Then why, for example, does the solution for a free particle 
 spread out as time progresses? AG *

>>>
>>> >> As time progresses things change, that is in fact what time means. So 
>>> if something spreads out as time progresses if you reverse time then that 
>>> "something" would converge. Schrodinger's wave equation works in either 
>>> direction, no information is lost so if you know what the wave looks like 
>>> now you can figure out what it will look like tomorrow and also figure out 
>>> what it looked like yesterday.   
>>>
>>
>> *> If you don't know that the SE is time DEPENDENT, at least one of its 
>> forms, you should refrain from posing as a expert on its interpretation*
>>
>
> You've forgotten how all this started, you said "but S's equation just 
> gives the time dependent probabilities BEFORE a measurement is taken" , and 
> I made it clear that Schrödinger's Equation is independent of if time is 
> going forwards or backwards, so if you know what the quantum wave of a 
> particle is today the day after a measurement has been taken then 
> Schrödinger's Equation can tell you what the quantum wave will be tomorrow, 
> and also what the quantum wave was the day before yesterday, the day before 
> a measurement will be taken. This is my exact quote and I still stand by 
> every word of it:
>
> "*Schrödinger's Equation is time independent, it works just as well 
> forwards or backwards, so "before" or "after" are irrelevant terms. And 
> Schrödinger makes no use of "measurement" and says nothing about it*".
>
> So there are only two conclusions possible, either Schrödinger's Equation 
> is just wrong and needs to be drastically modified, or Many Worlds is 
> correct. I think Schrödinger's Equation works pretty well just as it is. 
>
>
The advantage for you is your use of a private language. In the SE, I see 
d/dt. Ergo, the equation is time *dependent*. I am not impressed or 
interested in your self-serving obscurations.

As for the Sagan issue, as I distinctly recall that I posted the citations 
to those articles, one with Sagan and one of his doctoral students at the 
time at Harvard, David Morrison (check him out on Wiki), and a second 
paper. possibly just with Sagan or just with Morrison, in 1967 or 1968. And 
No, I wasn't at Harvard, but working at the Smithsonian Astrophysical 
Observatory, located at 67 Garden Street, in Cambridge MA. One or both were 
printed in The Astronomical Journal. I also told you that my real name is 
NOT Grayson, but apparently you couldn't connect the dots. 

As for Roswell, for someone who firmly believes in the most fantastical and 
improbable interpretation of QM, I don't see that you're in a position to 
cast aspersions on my belief in the Roswell Incident. What do you think the 
US Navy pilots were chasing fairly recently? Do you have a clue, or do you 
just like to demonstrate how closed you are to unusual phenomena? You 
regard yourself as an objective analyst of scientific facts, but you're 
anything but; just another fool shooting off your mouth.

AG

By the way, Erwin Schrödinger made no secret of being a sexual libertine, 
but now his politically incorrect lifestyle is catching up with him, there 
is a move afoot by the same sort of imbeciles who dreamed up the phrase 
"defund the police" to change one thing in the equation, its name. They're 
also trying to change the name of the James Webb telescope.  

>
> *> Further, in the case of a free particle, the solution changes its form 
>> as tIme goes backward,*
>>
>
> Of course the solutions change depending on if time is going forwards or 
> backwards! If it didn't it wouldn't conform with reality and would be 
> absolutely useless because since the days of Ogg the caveman humanity has 
> known that yesterday was different than today and feels very confident that 
> tomorrow will be different from today.   
>
> > * your comment shows ignorance of what time dependence means. AG *
>
>
> At least I'm not so ignorant as to think that we've been putting things 
> into orbit for nearly 70 years without obtaining hypersonic speed, or that 
> flying saucer men landed in Roswell New Mexico in 1948. And I never 
> claimed, as you have, that you were the co-author of a scientific paper 
> with Carl Sagan sometime in the 1960's but have completely forgotten the 
> exact date of the paper, the journal the paper was printed in, the topic of 
> the paper, and even the name you were using back then; and if anybody on 
> this list believes that then there's a bridge I'd like to sell you.
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> ews
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List"

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 11:05 AM Alan Grayson 
wrote:

 Schrödinger's Equation is time independent,

>>>
>>> *>>> Then why, for example, does the solution for a free particle spread
>>> out as time progresses? AG *
>>>
>>
>> >> As time progresses things change, that is in fact what time means. So
>> if something spreads out as time progresses if you reverse time then that
>> "something" would converge. Schrodinger's wave equation works in either
>> direction, no information is lost so if you know what the wave looks like
>> now you can figure out what it will look like tomorrow and also figure out
>> what it looked like yesterday.
>>
>
> *> If you don't know that the SE is time DEPENDENT, at least one of its
> forms, you should refrain from posing as a expert on its interpretation*
>

You've forgotten how all this started, you said "but S's equation just
gives the time dependent probabilities BEFORE a measurement is taken" , and
I made it clear that Schrödinger's Equation is independent of if time is
going forwards or backwards, so if you know what the quantum wave of a
particle is today the day after a measurement has been taken then
Schrödinger's Equation can tell you what the quantum wave will be tomorrow,
and also what the quantum wave was the day before yesterday, the day before
a measurement will be taken. This is my exact quote and I still stand by
every word of it:

"*Schrödinger's Equation is time independent, it works just as well
forwards or backwards, so "before" or "after" are irrelevant terms. And
Schrödinger makes no use of "measurement" and says nothing about it*".

So there are only two conclusions possible, either Schrödinger's Equation
is just wrong and needs to be drastically modified, or Many Worlds is
correct. I think Schrödinger's Equation works pretty well just as it is.

By the way, Erwin Schrödinger made no secret of being a sexual libertine,
but now his politically incorrect lifestyle is catching up with him, there
is a move afoot by the same sort of imbeciles who dreamed up the phrase
"defund the police" to change one thing in the equation, its name. They're
also trying to change the name of the James Webb telescope.

*> Further, in the case of a free particle, the solution changes its form
> as tIme goes backward,*
>

Of course the solutions change depending on if time is going forwards or
backwards! If it didn't it wouldn't conform with reality and would be
absolutely useless because since the days of Ogg the caveman humanity has
known that yesterday was different than today and feels very confident that
tomorrow will be different from today.

> * your comment shows ignorance of what time dependence means. AG *

At least I'm not so ignorant as to think that we've been putting things
into orbit for nearly 70 years without obtaining hypersonic speed, or that
flying saucer men landed in Roswell New Mexico in 1948. And I never
claimed, as you have, that you were the co-author of a scientific paper
with Carl Sagan sometime in the 1960's but have completely forgotten the
exact date of the paper, the journal the paper was printed in, the topic of
the paper, and even the name you were using back then; and if anybody on
this list believes that then there's a bridge I'd like to sell you.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

ews

-- 
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/CAJPayv0E%3DES481emiZyChxFrJO1xXMb5UQ1BiBwDZdJi_jiPJA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule



On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 2:43:47 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 3:01 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
> >> Schrödinger's Equation is time independent, 
>>>
>>
>> *> Then why, for example, does the solution for a free particle spread 
>> out as time progresses? AG *
>>
>
> As time progresses things change, that is in fact what time means. So if 
> something spreads out as time progresses if you reverse time then that 
> "something" would converge. Schrodinger's wave equation works in either 
> direction, no information is lost so if you know what the wave looks like 
> now you can figure out what it will look like tomorrow and also figure out 
> what it looked like yesterday.   
>

If you don't know that the SE is time DEPENDENT, at least one of its forms, 
you should refrain from posing as a expert on its interpretation. Further, 
in the case of a free particle, the solution changes its form as tIme goes 
backward, or forward, so your comment shows ignorance of what time 
dependence *means*. AG 

>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> ptp
>

-- 
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/e32451b9-c92f-49c7-ad5a-61d4faa63514n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 8:49 PM George Kahrimanis 
wrote:

>
>>> Strictly speaking, zero information implies "undefined probability",
>>
>>
>> >> Sure, but [...]
>>
>
> *> Sorry, but if it is undefined then there is no "but".*
>

In this case there is a "but" because thanks to quantum mechanics there is
NOT zero information about what will happen when a photon of unknown
polarization encounters a polarizer oriented in the horizontal direction;
quantum mechanics says there are 2 and only 2 possible outcomes to that
situation and it also says there is no reason to favor one of those
outcomes over the other

* > my point was to prepare the reader for a version of the Born rule
> concerning large samples only, instead of single outcomes.*
>

Such a version would be less powerful and less useful because if a gambler
wished to make money he would be foolish to ignore the Born rule when
placing bets or setting odds, even for one time events. So there doesn't
seem to be much point in developing such a version.

>>> *Although Everett's argument (whose improvement I have proposed) grants
>>> that in the long run (that is, large samples) the Born Rule is practically
>>> certain to apply, this is not technically the same as probability for each
>>> single outcome -- though I admit that it works the same,*
>>
>>
>> >> I would argue that if X works the same as Y then technically X is Y.
>>
>
> *> Careful! You trimmed off the end of my sentence: "... it works the
> same, to trigger an instinctive impulse". *
>

I trimmed your sentence because it was redundant. As I said if X works the
same as Y then technically X is Y, so obviously X would trigger the same
instinctive impulse that Y does, and X would trigger everything else that Y
triggers too because X works the same as Y.

If X works the same as Y then how does it still make sense to say that  X
is not Y?

> *> Sorry for my sloppy syntax: I meant "it works the same, with regard to
> triggering an instinctive impulse". Noy always, not necessarily.*
>

If the use of probability, even for single occurrences, triggers an
instinctive impulse then it must've conferred an evolutionary advantage
over people in which that instinctive impulse was lacking, so the use of
probability, even for single occurrences, must confer a survival advantage
because Evolution cannot be fooled by philosophical bafflegab. If a
rational person were forced to play Russian roulette (a one time event) but
was given a choice between using a revolver that had 1 bullet and 5 empty
chambers and a revolver that had 5 bullets and 1 empty chamber, which
revolver would a rational person choose?

> Instead of "technically" you should have "practically", in the sense "a
> technical distinction without a practical difference".
>

I used that word because you originally said  "*the Born Rule is
practically certain to apply, this is not technically the same as
probability for each single outcome -- though I admit that it works the
same*".

>>>  for a RATIONAL decision theory this probability is not granted,
>>
>>
>> *>> IF* that's true *THEN* a RATIONAL man will consistently make
>> predictions about the outcome of an experiment that are inferior to the
>> predictions that an IRRATIONAL man would make. So there would be no
>> point to rationality or being "rational". *THEREFORE* I conclude that
>> your above statement is not true.
>>
>
> > (I emphasised "rational" as opposed to an experimentally derived
> decision theory.)
>

I can't think of anything more rational than basing your ideas about how
the world works on observation and experimentation. Aristotle wrote that
women had fewer teeth than men, it's known that he was married, twice in
fact, yet he never thought of just looking into his wife's mouth and
counting. Aristotle thought that just by sitting and thinking he could
figure out how the world works. Aristotle was not being rational.

>
> > Moreover, rationality is about organising certain basic irrational
> pursuits, typically thinkgs like security, food, sex, and entertainment;
> priorities are for to the agent to define.
>

Entertainment perhaps but, going back for billions of years, if every
single one of your ancestors, without exception, was not obsessed with
security, food and sex, you would not exist. And the same could be said
about every other organism on the planet

> *> Not a black-or-white dichotomy, therefore*.
>

I think it is a black-or-white dichotomy, an organism can get its genes
into the next generation or it cannot

*> Example. When I have a choice between acting recklessly and acting
> carefully, and my spirit of adventure overcomes my instict of survival, a
> rational argument IMO is to think of my insurance: they will increase the
> premium or drop me if they classify me as a reckless man. I need insurance
> because of uncertainty, to protect my future selves as well as my loved
> ones in future branches in which I will not exist.*

In Evolution there is always a trade-off,

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

2022-04-22 Thread George Kahrimanis

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 2:13:43 PM UTC+3 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 6:04 PM George Kahrimanis  
> wrote:
>  
>
>> > Strictly speaking, zero information implies "undefined probability",
>
>
> Sure, but[...]
>

Sorry, but if it is undefined then there is no "but". You remind me of 
myself a few decades ago, when I was in love with Bayesian inference and I 
defended the use of artificial priors. Later I understood that BI is just a 
heuristic method, not sound inference (unless the prior is true). A flat 
prior, or probabilities 1/2 in this case, are only tools in a heuristisc 
method, not proper descriptions of ignorance.

Anyway, my point in this example was only that probability is a very tricky 
subject.

> For the instrumentalists among us (glad to have you, BTW): the question 
>> of interest to me is not about which way is best to derive probability from 
>> QM -- that would be a pointless discussion,
>
>
> It would be pointless because we have known from experiment for nearly a 
> century that the best way to obtain probability from quantum mechanics is 
> to take the square of the absolute value of a particle's wave-function, 
> a.k.a. the Born rule.
>

Not only I do not argue with this, but I emphasise it: this is one of the 
ways in which QM appears "workable". But my point was to prepare the reader 
for a version of the Born rule concerning large samples only, instead of 
single outcomes. Surely the experimental evidence is from large samples; 
the probability for a single case is an extrapolation which is "a matter of 
course" for a certain way of thinking, but not technically obligatory.

>   
>
>> >The question is whether all of them beg the question, so that we have 
>> to think of a rational decision theory without probability.
>>
>
> Even in the days before quantum mechanics, as soon as physicists started 
> thinking about thermodynamics they knew that a rational decision theory 
> without probability was not viable.
>

In my anwer to Brent (my previous message) I gave an example.

> Although Everett's argument (whose improvement I have proposed) grants 
>> that in the long run (that is, large samples) the Born Rule is practically 
>> certain to apply, this is not technically the same as probability for each 
>> single outcome -- though I admit that it works the same,
>
>
> I would argue that if X works the same as Y then technically X is Y.
>

Careful! You trimmed off the end of my sentence: "... it works the same, to 
trigger an instinctive impulse".  Sorry for my sloppy syntax: I meant "it 
works the same, with regard to triggering an instinctive impulse". Noy 
always, not necessarily.

Instead of "technically" you should have "practically", in the sense "a 
technical distinction without a practical difference".

>
> >  for a RATIONAL decision theory this probability is not granted,
>
>
> *IF* that's true *THEN* a RATIONAL man will consistently make predictions 
> about the outcome of an experiment that are inferior to the predictions 
> that an IRRATIONAL man would make. So there would be no point to 
> rationality or being "rational". *THEREFORE* I conclude that your above 
> statement is not true.
>

(I emphasised "rational" as opposed to an experimentally derived decision 
theory.)

A good point, but I am an inadequate amateur in the subject you bring up. 
Surely it is more fun to be irrational, for a while at least, and we all do 
it. Besides, there is no point in being rational about taking an umbrella 
in the morrning, unless there are grave consequences to reckon with. 
Moreover, rationality is about organising certain basic irrational 
pursuits, typically thinkgs like security, food, sex, and entertainment; 
priorities are for to the agent to define. Not a black-or-white dichotomy, 
therefore.

And I did not say that there are rational versus irrational predictions. My 
concern is about the interpretation of probability for a single outcome. If 
it is a matter of pleasure without any worrying consequences, then the 
irrational interpretation is fine, even from the rational point of view,

At least we agree on the MWI! The other issues will be resolved, I hope.

George K.

-- 
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/e85c3c27-a813-4c25-a7b4-95104349e97dn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

2022-04-22 Thread George Kahrimanis

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 1:33:46 AM UTC+3 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

> On 4/21/2022 3:03 PM, George Kahrimanis wrote:
>
> [...] Strictly speaking, zero information implies "undefined probability", 
> or "imprecise probability between 0 and 1". The reason it is commonly 
> mistaken as 50-50 is an implied strategy, flipping a coin in case of 
> ignorance, but then the odds are of the coin instead of the object of the 
> bet. (This strategy works only if the agent is free to choose which side of 
> the bet she underwrites.)
>
>
> If the odds 50/50 can apply to the coin...because you don't know which way 
> it will come down...then the same concept applies to the horse race.
>

No, I do have information about this coin: I have tossed it many times. I 
am clueless about this horserace. Big difference. Concentrate!

[...]  we have to think of a rational decision theory without probability.
>
> Rational decision theory only exists because of uncertainty.  If there 
> were no uncertainty one wouldn't need theory to inform your choice, you 
> would directly by value.
>

Now you are justified to be buffled, because I have avoided giving any 
example. Here is one, containing a combination of uncertainties and 
certainties -- the latter are "moral certainties", something like "FAPP" 
but well defined.

Example. When I have a choice between acting recklessly and acting 
carefully, and my spirit of adventure overcomes my instict of survival, a 
rational argument IMO is to think of my insurance: they will increase the 
premium or drop me if they classify me as a reckless man. I need insurance 
because of uncertainty, to protect my future selves as well as my loved 
ones in future branches in which I will not exist. To keep the example 
short, I postpone arguing why insurance provides moral certainty (in 
principle).

George K.

-- 
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/5f59349d-5db9-41d0-b5a7-9fabd029e205n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

2022-04-22 Thread Brent Meeker




On 4/22/2022 8:07 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 7:20:50 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:



On 4/21/2022 5:49 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 7:53:33 PM UTC-6
meeke...@gmail.com wrote:



On 4/20/2022 6:42 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 6:14:31 PM UTC-6 Alan
Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:21:47 PM UTC-6 Alan
Grayson wrote:



On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 12:41:03 PM UTC-6
meeke...@gmail.com wrote:



On 4/14/2022 2:00 PM, George Kahrimanis wrote:

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 8:55:48 PM
UTC+3 meeke...@gmail.com (Brent) wrote:

Decoherence has gone part way in solving
the when/where/what basis questions, but
only part way.


As I wrote at the end of my first reply to your
message, I share your concern about decoherence
but I see the glass as half-full; that is, with
a little more subtlety I hope that the matter
can be formulated in clear terms.

Surely collapse is easier to handle as a
general concept (except, on the other hand,
that it requires new dynamics). I forgot to
mention that *my argument for deriving the Born
Rule works with collapse, too* -- so it is an
alternative to Gleason's theorem.

Here I define colapse as an irreversible
process, violating unitarity of course, and I
keep it separate from randomisation. The latter
means that each outcome is somehow randomised
-- an assumption we can do without.

*Collapse can also be described in a many-world
formulation!* It differs from the no-collapse
MWI only in being irreversible.


If you can throw away low probability branches,
what's to stop you from throwing away all but
one?  You've already broken unitary evolution. 
If you read Hardy's axiomatization of QM you see
that the difference between QM and classical
mechanics turns on a single word in Axiom 5
Continuity: There exists a *continuous
*reversible transformation on a system between
any two pure states of that system.


My argument in outline is
1. assessment that MWI-with-collapse is workable;
2. therefore, outcomes of small enough measure
can be neglected in practice;


Yes, I've wondered if a smallest non-zero
probability could be defined consistent with the
data.


3. now Everett's argument can proceed,
concluding that the Born Rule is a practically
safe assumption (to put it briefly).

So I have replaced two assumptions of Gleason's
theorem, randomisation and non-contextuality,
by the assessment of workability only.

If you don't feel comfortable yet with
formulating collapse in a many-world setting,
let us also assume randomisation (God plays
dice), for the sake of the argument, in a
single-world formulation. That is, we ASSUME
the existence of probability; then the previous
argument just guarantees that this probability
follows the Born Rule.


Assume?  Randomness is well motivated by
evidence.  And it's more random than just not
knowing some inherent variable, because in the
EPR experiment a randomized hidden variable can
on explain the QM result if it's non-local.





Of course I favour the first version of the
argument, using the many-world formulation of
collapse, to avoid the "God plays dice" nightmare.


Why this fear of true randomness? We have all
kinds of classical randomness we just attributed
to "historical accident".  Would it really make
any difference it were due to inherent quantum
randomness?  Albrect and Phillips have made an
argument that there is quantum randomness even
nominally

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

2022-04-22 Thread Alan Grayson



On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 7:20:50 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On 4/21/2022 5:49 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 7:53:33 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4/20/2022 6:42 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 6:14:31 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:21:47 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>


 On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 12:41:03 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

>
>
> On 4/14/2022 2:00 PM, George Kahrimanis wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 8:55:48 PM UTC+3 meeke...@gmail.com 
> (Brent) wrote:
>
> Decoherence has gone part way in solving the when/where/what basis 
>> questions, but only part way.
>>
>
> As I wrote at the end of my first reply to your message, I share your 
> concern about decoherence but I see the glass as half-full; that is, with 
> a 
> little more subtlety I hope that the matter can be formulated in clear 
> terms.
>
> Surely collapse is easier to handle as a general concept (except, on 
> the other hand, that it requires new dynamics). I forgot to mention that 
> *my 
> argument for deriving the Born Rule works with collapse, too* -- so 
> it is an alternative to Gleason's theorem.
>
> Here I define colapse as an irreversible process, violating unitarity 
> of course, and I keep it separate from randomisation. The latter means 
> that 
> each outcome is somehow randomised -- an assumption we can do without.
>
> *Collapse can also be described in a many-world formulation!* It 
> differs from the no-collapse MWI only in being irreversible. 
>
>
> If you can throw away low probability branches, what's to stop you 
> from throwing away all but one?  You've already broken unitary evolution. 
>  
> If you read Hardy's axiomatization of QM you see that the difference 
> between QM and classical mechanics turns on a single word in Axiom 5 
> Continuity: There exists a *continuous *reversible transformation on 
> a system between any two pure states of that system.
>
> My argument in outline is
> 1. assessment that MWI-with-collapse is workable;
> 2. therefore, outcomes of small enough measure can be neglected in 
> practice;
>
>
> Yes, I've wondered if a smallest non-zero probability could be defined 
> consistent with the data.
>
> 3. now Everett's argument can proceed, concluding that the Born Rule 
> is a practically safe assumption (to put it briefly).
>
> So I have replaced two assumptions of Gleason's theorem, randomisation 
> and non-contextuality, by the assessment of workability only.
>
> If you don't feel comfortable yet with formulating collapse in a 
> many-world setting, let us also assume randomisation (God plays dice), 
> for 
> the sake of the argument, in a single-world formulation. That is, we 
> ASSUME 
> the existence of probability; then the previous argument just guarantees 
> that this probability follows the Born Rule.
>
>
> Assume?  Randomness is well motivated by evidence.  And it's more 
> random than just not knowing some inherent variable, because in the EPR 
> experiment a randomized hidden variable can on explain the QM result if 
> it's non-local.
>

>
>
> Of course I favour the first version of the argument, using the 
> many-world formulation of collapse, to avoid the "God plays dice" 
> nightmare.
>
>
> Why this fear of true randomness?  We have all kinds of classical 
> randomness we just attributed to "historical accident".  Would it really 
> make any difference it were due to inherent quantum randomness?  Albrect 
> and Phillips have made an argument that there is quantum randomness even 
> nominally classical dynamics. https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953v3
>

 The authors regard quantum fluctuations as fundamental. How are they 
 defined? AG

>>> I think I get it. Whereas before QM we could attribute single, 
>>> unpredictABLE outcomes to ignorance of initial conditions, and but with QM 
>>> our understanding is augmented; now we can attribute it to ... nothing? AG
>>>
>> Is that because, if we could attribute a single, unpredictable outccome 
>> to ignorance, that would be, defacto, a hidden variable theory? AG 
>>
>>
>> Roughtly, yes.  That's what a hidden variable is, a value that if you 
>> knew it you could predict the outcome.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>  
> Why the quaified "yes"? 
>
>
> Qualified because it's not clear what you mean by "attribute a single, 
> unpredictable outcome to ignorance."  You could attribute a single 
> unpredictable outcome to a cosmic ray hitting your instrument, but that's 
> not an example of a hidden variable, it's just your

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

2022-04-22 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 6:04 PM George Kahrimanis 
wrote:

>> [...] until Alan Grayson sees the end of the race, or somebody tells
>> Alan Grayson about it, Alan Grayson can't be certain what world Alan
>> Grayson is in. Alan Grayson could be in a world where horse X won or Alan
>> Grayson could be in a world where horse Y won, until Alan Grayson receives
>> more information Alan Grayson would have to say the odds are 50-50.
>
>
> *> If you mean that on sheer ignorance the odds are 50-50, we need some
> clarifications.*

If quantum mechanic says a photon must be either horizontally or vertically
polarized, and it can provide no reason to favor one outcome over the
other, then the odds are 50-50. Many Worlds would say that when the photon
encounters the polarizer the universe splits into two, one universe
contains a George Kahrimanis who sees a photon emerge from a polarizer
oriented in the horizontal direction, and one universe contains a George
Kahrimanis who does not see the photon emerge and concludes that before it
hit the polarizer the photon must've been polarized in the vertical
direction and was then destroyed.

> > Strictly speaking, zero information implies "undefined probability",

Sure, but thanks to quantum mechanics we are not completely clueless about
what will happen when a photon of unknown polarization encounters a
polarizer oriented in the horizontal direction, we can't be certain of the
outcome but we can be certain of certain outcomes that are not possible,
and we can obtain probabilities that are very useful about outcomes that ARE
possible.

> For the instrumentalists among us (glad to have you, BTW): the question
> of interest to me is not about which way is best to derive probability from
> QM -- that would be a pointless discussion,

It would be pointless because we have known from experiment for nearly a
century that the best way to obtain probability from quantum mechanics is
to take the square of the absolute value of a particle's wave-function,
a.k.a. the Born rule.

>The question is whether all of them beg the question, so that we have to
> think of a rational decision theory without probability.
>

Even in the days before quantum mechanics, as soon as physicists started
thinking about thermodynamics they knew that a rational decision theory
without probability was not viable.

> > Although Everett's argument (whose improvement I have proposed) grants
> that in the long run (that is, large samples) the Born Rule is practically
> certain to apply, this is not technically the same as probability for each
> single outcome -- though I admit that it works the same,

I would argue that if X works the same as Y then technically X is Y.

>  for a RATIONAL decision theory this probability is not granted,

*IF* that's true *THEN* a RATIONAL man will consistently make predictions
about the outcome of an experiment that are inferior to the predictions
that an IRRATIONAL man would make. So there would be no point to
rationality or being "rational". *THEREFORE* I conclude that your above
statement is not true.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

pbc

arq

-- 
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/CAJPayv1P19RkhT9tvXE%2BGbyiSxC5%3DxrVR8qvqeA98Cx6ir3DqQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

2022-04-21 Thread Brent Meeker




On 4/21/2022 5:49 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 7:53:33 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:



On 4/20/2022 6:42 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 6:14:31 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:21:47 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson
wrote:



On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 12:41:03 PM UTC-6
meeke...@gmail.com wrote:



On 4/14/2022 2:00 PM, George Kahrimanis wrote:

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 8:55:48 PM UTC+3
meeke...@gmail.com (Brent) wrote:

Decoherence has gone part way in solving the
when/where/what basis questions, but only part way.


As I wrote at the end of my first reply to your
message, I share your concern about decoherence but
I see the glass as half-full; that is, with a little
more subtlety I hope that the matter can be
formulated in clear terms.

Surely collapse is easier to handle as a general
concept (except, on the other hand, that it requires
new dynamics). I forgot to mention that *my argument
for deriving the Born Rule works with collapse, too*
-- so it is an alternative to Gleason's theorem.

Here I define colapse as an irreversible process,
violating unitarity of course, and I keep it
separate from randomisation. The latter means that
each outcome is somehow randomised -- an assumption
we can do without.

*Collapse can also be described in a many-world
formulation!* It differs from the no-collapse MWI
only in being irreversible.


If you can throw away low probability branches,
what's to stop you from throwing away all but one? 
You've already broken unitary evolution.  If you read
Hardy's axiomatization of QM you see that the
difference between QM and classical mechanics turns
on a single word in Axiom 5 Continuity: There exists
a *continuous *reversible transformation on a system
between any two pure states of that system.


My argument in outline is
1. assessment that MWI-with-collapse is workable;
2. therefore, outcomes of small enough measure can
be neglected in practice;


Yes, I've wondered if a smallest non-zero probability
could be defined consistent with the data.


3. now Everett's argument can proceed, concluding
that the Born Rule is a practically safe assumption
(to put it briefly).

So I have replaced two assumptions of Gleason's
theorem, randomisation and non-contextuality, by the
assessment of workability only.

If you don't feel comfortable yet with formulating
collapse in a many-world setting, let us also assume
randomisation (God plays dice), for the sake of the
argument, in a single-world formulation. That is, we
ASSUME the existence of probability; then the
previous argument just guarantees that this
probability follows the Born Rule.


Assume?  Randomness is well motivated by evidence. 
And it's more random than just not knowing some
inherent variable, because in the EPR experiment a
randomized hidden variable can on explain the QM
result if it's non-local.





Of course I favour the first version of the
argument, using the many-world formulation of
collapse, to avoid the "God plays dice" nightmare.


Why this fear of true randomness?  We have all kinds
of classical randomness we just attributed to
"historical accident". Would it really make any
difference it were due to inherent quantum
randomness? Albrect and Phillips have made an
argument that there is quantum randomness even
nominally classical dynamics.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953v3


The authors regard quantum fluctuations as fundamental.
How are they defined? AG

I think I get it. Whereas before QM we could attribute
single, unpredictABLE outcomes to ignorance of initial
conditions, and but with QM our understanding is augmented;
now we can attribute it to ... nothing? AG

Is that because, if we could attribute a single, unpredictable
outccome to ignorance, that would be,

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

2022-04-21 Thread Alan Grayson

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 7:53:33 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On 4/20/2022 6:42 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 6:14:31 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:21:47 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 12:41:03 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>

 On 4/14/2022 2:00 PM, George Kahrimanis wrote:

 On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 8:55:48 PM UTC+3 meeke...@gmail.com 
 (Brent) wrote:

 Decoherence has gone part way in solving the when/where/what basis 
> questions, but only part way.
>

 As I wrote at the end of my first reply to your message, I share your 
 concern about decoherence but I see the glass as half-full; that is, with 
 a 
 little more subtlety I hope that the matter can be formulated in clear 
 terms.

 Surely collapse is easier to handle as a general concept (except, on 
 the other hand, that it requires new dynamics). I forgot to mention that 
 *my 
 argument for deriving the Born Rule works with collapse, too* -- so it 
 is an alternative to Gleason's theorem.

 Here I define colapse as an irreversible process, violating unitarity 
 of course, and I keep it separate from randomisation. The latter means 
 that 
 each outcome is somehow randomised -- an assumption we can do without.

 *Collapse can also be described in a many-world formulation!* It 
 differs from the no-collapse MWI only in being irreversible. 

 If you can throw away low probability branches, what's to stop you from 
 throwing away all but one?  You've already broken unitary evolution.  If 
 you read Hardy's axiomatization of QM you see that the difference between 
 QM and classical mechanics turns on a single word in Axiom 5 Continuity: 
 There exists a *continuous *reversible transformation on a system 
 between any two pure states of that system.

 My argument in outline is
 1. assessment that MWI-with-collapse is workable;
 2. therefore, outcomes of small enough measure can be neglected in 
 practice;

 Yes, I've wondered if a smallest non-zero probability could be defined 
 consistent with the data.

 3. now Everett's argument can proceed, concluding that the Born Rule is 
 a practically safe assumption (to put it briefly).

 So I have replaced two assumptions of Gleason's theorem, randomisation 
 and non-contextuality, by the assessment of workability only.

 If you don't feel comfortable yet with formulating collapse in a 
 many-world setting, let us also assume randomisation (God plays dice), for 
 the sake of the argument, in a single-world formulation. That is, we 
 ASSUME 
 the existence of probability; then the previous argument just guarantees 
 that this probability follows the Born Rule.

 Assume?  Randomness is well motivated by evidence.  And it's more 
 random than just not knowing some inherent variable, because in the EPR 
 experiment a randomized hidden variable can on explain the QM result if 
 it's non-local.

>>>

 Of course I favour the first version of the argument, using the 
 many-world formulation of collapse, to avoid the "God plays dice" 
 nightmare.

 Why this fear of true randomness?  We have all kinds of classical 
 randomness we just attributed to "historical accident".  Would it really 
 make any difference it were due to inherent quantum randomness?  Albrect 
 and Phillips have made an argument that there is quantum randomness even 
 nominally classical dynamics. https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953v3

>>>
>>> The authors regard quantum fluctuations as fundamental. How are they 
>>> defined? AG
>>>
>> I think I get it. Whereas before QM we could attribute single, 
>> unpredictABLE outcomes to ignorance of initial conditions, and but with QM 
>> our understanding is augmented; now we can attribute it to ... nothing? AG
>>
> Is that because, if we could attribute a single, unpredictable outccome to 
> ignorance, that would be, defacto, a hidden variable theory? AG 
>
>
> Roughtly, yes.  That's what a hidden variable is, a value that if you knew 
> it you could predict the outcome.
>
> Brent
>

Why the quaified "yes"? Does Bell's theorem exclude ignorance as a hidden 
variable? 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/b5f3ba33-de85-44bb-aa6a-0f5b4b6cdecan%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

2022-04-21 Thread Brent Meeker

On 4/21/2022 3:03 PM, George Kahrimanis wrote:
In my current way of thinking, the disagreement between Alan Grayson
and John K. Clark is about two subtly different concepts under the
same name, "probability". For example, when I read "80% chance of rain
today", I may think that in some possible futures it will not rain (so
probability is meaningless), yet I feel an instinctive urge for
protection from bad weather, so I take my umbrella. We are programmed
to act in this way, due to Darwinian selection -- but it is a
different matter to claim that QM (without collapse) issues a
probability for each possible outcome so that then we are rationally
obliged to apply Maximisation of Expected Utility. I grant the former
but not the latter.

Part of the trouble is that serious philosophical issues about
probability are still debated, so that there are traps for anyone who
deals with these things. Here is an example.

> [...] until Alan Grayson sees the end of the race, or somebody tells Alan Grayson about it, Alan
Grayson can't be certain what world Alan Grayson is in. Alan Grayson
could be in a world where horse X won or Alan Grayson could be in a
world where horse Y won, until Alan Grayson receives more information
Alan Grayson would have to say the odds are 50-50.

If you mean that on sheer ignorance the odds are 50-50, we need some
clarifications. Strictly speaking, zero information implies "undefined
probability", or "imprecise probability between 0 and 1". The reason
it is commonly mistaken as 50-50 is an implied strategy, flipping a
coin in case of ignorance, but then the odds are of the coin instead
of the object of the bet. (This strategy works only if the agent is
free to choose which side of the bet she underwrites.)

If the odds 50/50 can apply to the coin...because you don't know which
way it will come down...then the same concept applies to the horse race.

For the instrumentalists among us (glad to have you, BTW): the
question of interest to me is not about which way is best to derive
probability from QM -- that would be a pointless discussion, I agree!
The question is whether all of them beg the question, so that we have
to think of a rational decision theory without probability.

Rational decision theory only exists because of uncertainty. If there
were no uncertainty one wouldn't need theory to inform your choice, you
would directly by value.

Brent

Although Everett's argument (whose improvement I have proposed) grants
that in the long run (that is, large samples) the Born Rule is
practically certain to apply, this is not technically the same as
probability for each single outcome -- though I admit that it works
the same, to trigger an instinctive impulse. But for a RATIONAL
decision theory this probability is not granted, IMO.

I can give examples of a decision theory w/o probability, but they
would dilute the focus of this message.

George K. --
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/b10325e2-03ae-4e2f-bc4b-9e144ef989d7n%40googlegroups.com
.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

2022-04-21 Thread George Kahrimanis

In my current way of thinking, the disagreement between Alan Grayson and
John K. Clark is about two subtly different concepts under the same name,
"probability". For example, when I read "80% chance of rain today", I may
think that in some possible futures it will not rain (so probability is
meaningless), yet I feel an instinctive urge for protection from bad
weather, so I take my umbrella. We are programmed to act in this way, due
to Darwinian selection -- but it is a different matter to claim that QM
(without collapse) issues a probability for each possible outcome so that
then we are rationally obliged to apply Maximisation of Expected Utility. I
grant the former but not the latter.

Part of the trouble is that serious philosophical issues about probability
are still debated, so that there are traps for anyone who deals with these
things. Here is an example.

> [...] until Alan Grayson sees the end of the race, or somebody tells Alan
Grayson about it, Alan Grayson can't be certain what world Alan Grayson is
in. Alan Grayson could be in a world where horse X won or Alan Grayson
could be in a world where horse Y won, until Alan Grayson receives more
information Alan Grayson would have to say the odds are 50-50.

If you mean that on sheer ignorance the odds are 50-50, we need some
clarifications. Strictly speaking, zero information implies "undefined
probability", or "imprecise probability between 0 and 1". The reason it is
commonly mistaken as 50-50 is an implied strategy, flipping a coin in case
of ignorance, but then the odds are of the coin instead of the object of
the bet. (This strategy works only if the agent is free to choose which
side of the bet she underwrites.)

For the instrumentalists among us (glad to have you, BTW): the question of
interest to me is not about which way is best to derive probability from QM
-- that would be a pointless discussion, I agree! The question is whether
all of them beg the question, so that we have to think of a rational
decision theory without probability.

Although Everett's argument (whose improvement I have proposed) grants that
in the long run (that is, large samples) the Born Rule is practically
certain to apply, this is not technically the same as probability for each
single outcome -- though I admit that it works the same, to trigger an
instinctive impulse. But for a RATIONAL decision theory this probability is
not granted, IMO.

I can give examples of a decision theory w/o probability, but they would
dilute the focus of this message.

George K.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

2022-04-20 Thread Brent Meeker




On 4/20/2022 6:42 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 6:14:31 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:21:47 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:



On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 12:41:03 PM UTC-6
meeke...@gmail.com wrote:



On 4/14/2022 2:00 PM, George Kahrimanis wrote:

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 8:55:48 PM UTC+3
meeke...@gmail.com (Brent) wrote:

Decoherence has gone part way in solving the
when/where/what basis questions, but only part way.


As I wrote at the end of my first reply to your message,
I share your concern about decoherence but I see the
glass as half-full; that is, with a little more subtlety
I hope that the matter can be formulated in clear terms.

Surely collapse is easier to handle as a general concept
(except, on the other hand, that it requires new
dynamics). I forgot to mention that *my argument for
deriving the Born Rule works with collapse, too* -- so it
is an alternative to Gleason's theorem.

Here I define colapse as an irreversible process,
violating unitarity of course, and I keep it separate
from randomisation. The latter means that each outcome is
somehow randomised -- an assumption we can do without.

*Collapse can also be described in a many-world
formulation!* It differs from the no-collapse MWI only in
being irreversible.


If you can throw away low probability branches, what's to
stop you from throwing away all but one?  You've already
broken unitary evolution.  If you read Hardy's
axiomatization of QM you see that the difference between
QM and classical mechanics turns on a single word in Axiom
5 Continuity: There exists a *continuous *reversible
transformation on a system between any two pure states of
that system.


My argument in outline is
1. assessment that MWI-with-collapse is workable;
2. therefore, outcomes of small enough measure can be
neglected in practice;


Yes, I've wondered if a smallest non-zero probability
could be defined consistent with the data.


3. now Everett's argument can proceed, concluding that
the Born Rule is a practically safe assumption (to put it
briefly).

So I have replaced two assumptions of Gleason's theorem,
randomisation and non-contextuality, by the assessment of
workability only.

If you don't feel comfortable yet with formulating
collapse in a many-world setting, let us also assume
randomisation (God plays dice), for the sake of the
argument, in a single-world formulation. That is, we
ASSUME the existence of probability; then the previous
argument just guarantees that this probability follows
the Born Rule.


Assume?  Randomness is well motivated by evidence.  And
it's more random than just not knowing some inherent
variable, because in the EPR experiment a randomized
hidden variable can on explain the QM result if it's
non-local.





Of course I favour the first version of the argument,
using the many-world formulation of collapse, to avoid
the "God plays dice" nightmare.


Why this fear of true randomness?  We have all kinds of
classical randomness we just attributed to "historical
accident".  Would it really make any difference it were
due to inherent quantum randomness?  Albrect and Phillips
have made an argument that there is quantum randomness
even nominally classical dynamics.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953v3


The authors regard quantum fluctuations as fundamental. How
are they defined? AG

I think I get it. Whereas before QM we could attribute single,
unpredictABLE outcomes to ignorance of initial conditions, and but
with QM our understanding is augmented; now we can attribute it to
... nothing? AG

Is that because, if we could attribute a single, unpredictable 
outccome to ignorance, that would be, defacto, a hidden variable 
theory? AG


Roughtly, yes.  That's what a hidden variable is, a value that if you 
knew it you could predict the outcome.


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

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

2022-04-20 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Ah, Bohminan pilot wave mechanics. It's probably just part of the Root Kit of 
the universe? You know, as Wigner's Friend chatted in Mandarin through the slot 
in Searle's Room, to Schrodinger's Cat, "I knew instantly what you were 
thinking"
This bon mot, rolled em in the aisles in the faculty lounge at Princeton U. or 
was it Teaneck? 

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
Sent: Tue, Apr 19, 2022 6:42 am
Subject: Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 2:17 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> the Pilot Wave theory assumes each particle has a definite position and 
> momentum.

That's true but unlike Many Worlds Pilot Wave theory is non-local, it 
postulates there is a mysterious force of some sort that is undiminished by 
distance in which two particles billions of light years apart can INSTANTLY 
affect each other without affecting anything in between. It seems to me if that 
were the case then we'd have to know everything before we could know anything, 
and that does not conform with observation because although we don't know 
everything we do know some things. If the universe was really non-local we 
couldn't even make approximate predictions regardless of if things were 
deterministic or not.

Copenhagen assumes a particle has NO position and momentum if it has not been 
measured. Pilot Wave theory assumes  a particle has ONE position and momentum 
if it has not been measured. Many Worlds assumes Schrodinger's equation means 
what it says so a particle has EVERY position and momentum the equation allows 
regardless of if it has been measured or not. 

> It doesn't violate the HUP because the HUP simply limits what we can measure.

Then you should like Many Worlds because it says everything happens because of 
Schrodinger's equation, and Schrodinger's equation is 100% deterministic. Many 
Worlds also explains why that, although from the multiverse point of view 
things are as deterministic as Schrödinger's equation, to any particular 
observer in one of those worlds there would be a limit to how accurate his 
predictions can be.
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
tpw

-- 
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/CAJPayv1BGW3kvTVNUXf0cYRJSmMmLvJW997s-uvpSRFfw_T_KQ%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/123483811.1058510.1650505537110%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

2022-04-20 Thread Alan Grayson



On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 6:14:31 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:21:47 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 12:41:03 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/14/2022 2:00 PM, George Kahrimanis wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 8:55:48 PM UTC+3 meeke...@gmail.com 
>>> (Brent) wrote:
>>>
>>> Decoherence has gone part way in solving the when/where/what basis 
 questions, but only part way.

>>>
>>> As I wrote at the end of my first reply to your message, I share your 
>>> concern about decoherence but I see the glass as half-full; that is, with a 
>>> little more subtlety I hope that the matter can be formulated in clear 
>>> terms.
>>>
>>> Surely collapse is easier to handle as a general concept (except, on the 
>>> other hand, that it requires new dynamics). I forgot to mention that *my 
>>> argument for deriving the Born Rule works with collapse, too* -- so it 
>>> is an alternative to Gleason's theorem.
>>>
>>> Here I define colapse as an irreversible process, violating unitarity of 
>>> course, and I keep it separate from randomisation. The latter means that 
>>> each outcome is somehow randomised -- an assumption we can do without.
>>>
>>> *Collapse can also be described in a many-world formulation!* It 
>>> differs from the no-collapse MWI only in being irreversible. 
>>>
>>>
>>> If you can throw away low probability branches, what's to stop you from 
>>> throwing away all but one?  You've already broken unitary evolution.  If 
>>> you read Hardy's axiomatization of QM you see that the difference between 
>>> QM and classical mechanics turns on a single word in Axiom 5 Continuity: 
>>> There exists a *continuous *reversible transformation on a system 
>>> between any two pure states of that system.
>>>
>>> My argument in outline is
>>> 1. assessment that MWI-with-collapse is workable;
>>> 2. therefore, outcomes of small enough measure can be neglected in 
>>> practice;
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I've wondered if a smallest non-zero probability could be defined 
>>> consistent with the data.
>>>
>>> 3. now Everett's argument can proceed, concluding that the Born Rule is 
>>> a practically safe assumption (to put it briefly).
>>>
>>> So I have replaced two assumptions of Gleason's theorem, randomisation 
>>> and non-contextuality, by the assessment of workability only.
>>>
>>> If you don't feel comfortable yet with formulating collapse in a 
>>> many-world setting, let us also assume randomisation (God plays dice), for 
>>> the sake of the argument, in a single-world formulation. That is, we ASSUME 
>>> the existence of probability; then the previous argument just guarantees 
>>> that this probability follows the Born Rule.
>>>
>>>
>>> Assume?  Randomness is well motivated by evidence.  And it's more random 
>>> than just not knowing some inherent variable, because in the EPR experiment 
>>> a randomized hidden variable can on explain the QM result if it's non-local.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course I favour the first version of the argument, using the 
>>> many-world formulation of collapse, to avoid the "God plays dice" nightmare.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why this fear of true randomness?  We have all kinds of classical 
>>> randomness we just attributed to "historical accident".  Would it really 
>>> make any difference it were due to inherent quantum randomness?  Albrect 
>>> and Phillips have made an argument that there is quantum randomness even 
>>> nominally classical dynamics. https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953v3
>>>
>>
>> The authors regard quantum fluctuations as fundamental. How are they 
>> defined? AG
>>
> I think I get it. Whereas before QM we could attribute single, 
> unpredictABLE outcomes to ignorance of initial conditions, and but with QM 
> our understanding is augmented; now we can attribute it to ... nothing? AG
>
Is that because, if we could attribute a single, unpredictable outccome to 
ignorance, that would be, defacto, a hidden variable theory? AG 

Brent
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the comments so far, because they stirred my thinking and 
>>> motivated fresh ideas, some of which I hope will prove helpful and worth 
>>> discussing, if and when they mature.
>>>
>>> George K.
>>>
>>>
>>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/06930c0c-5537-4fb7-bf70-fd8c7d9859b0n%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,

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

2022-04-20 Thread Alan Grayson



On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:21:47 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

>
>
> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 12:41:03 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4/14/2022 2:00 PM, George Kahrimanis wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 8:55:48 PM UTC+3 meeke...@gmail.com 
>> (Brent) wrote:
>>
>> Decoherence has gone part way in solving the when/where/what basis 
>>> questions, but only part way.
>>>
>>
>> As I wrote at the end of my first reply to your message, I share your 
>> concern about decoherence but I see the glass as half-full; that is, with a 
>> little more subtlety I hope that the matter can be formulated in clear 
>> terms.
>>
>> Surely collapse is easier to handle as a general concept (except, on the 
>> other hand, that it requires new dynamics). I forgot to mention that *my 
>> argument for deriving the Born Rule works with collapse, too* -- so it 
>> is an alternative to Gleason's theorem.
>>
>> Here I define colapse as an irreversible process, violating unitarity of 
>> course, and I keep it separate from randomisation. The latter means that 
>> each outcome is somehow randomised -- an assumption we can do without.
>>
>> *Collapse can also be described in a many-world formulation!* It differs 
>> from the no-collapse MWI only in being irreversible. 
>>
>>
>> If you can throw away low probability branches, what's to stop you from 
>> throwing away all but one?  You've already broken unitary evolution.  If 
>> you read Hardy's axiomatization of QM you see that the difference between 
>> QM and classical mechanics turns on a single word in Axiom 5 Continuity: 
>> There exists a *continuous *reversible transformation on a system 
>> between any two pure states of that system.
>>
>> My argument in outline is
>> 1. assessment that MWI-with-collapse is workable;
>> 2. therefore, outcomes of small enough measure can be neglected in 
>> practice;
>>
>>
>> Yes, I've wondered if a smallest non-zero probability could be defined 
>> consistent with the data.
>>
>> 3. now Everett's argument can proceed, concluding that the Born Rule is a 
>> practically safe assumption (to put it briefly).
>>
>> So I have replaced two assumptions of Gleason's theorem, randomisation 
>> and non-contextuality, by the assessment of workability only.
>>
>> If you don't feel comfortable yet with formulating collapse in a 
>> many-world setting, let us also assume randomisation (God plays dice), for 
>> the sake of the argument, in a single-world formulation. That is, we ASSUME 
>> the existence of probability; then the previous argument just guarantees 
>> that this probability follows the Born Rule.
>>
>>
>> Assume?  Randomness is well motivated by evidence.  And it's more random 
>> than just not knowing some inherent variable, because in the EPR experiment 
>> a randomized hidden variable can on explain the QM result if it's non-local.
>>
>
>>
>>
>> Of course I favour the first version of the argument, using the 
>> many-world formulation of collapse, to avoid the "God plays dice" nightmare.
>>
>>
>> Why this fear of true randomness?  We have all kinds of classical 
>> randomness we just attributed to "historical accident".  Would it really 
>> make any difference it were due to inherent quantum randomness?  Albrect 
>> and Phillips have made an argument that there is quantum randomness even 
>> nominally classical dynamics. https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953v3
>>
>
> The authors regard quantum fluctuations as fundamental. How are they 
> defined? AG
>
I think I get it. Whereas before QM we could attribute single, unpredicted 
outcomes to ignorance of initial conditions, and but with QM our 
understanding is augmented; now we can attribute it to ... nothing? AG

>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the comments so far, because they stirred my thinking and 
>> motivated fresh ideas, some of which I hope will prove helpful and worth 
>> discussing, if and when they mature.
>>
>> George K.
>>
>> -- 
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/06930c0c-5537-4fb7-bf70-fd8c7d9859b0n%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/24897ea1-c490-403d-9a2e-450a4128ba38n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

2022-04-20 Thread Alan Grayson



On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 12:41:03 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On 4/14/2022 2:00 PM, George Kahrimanis wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 8:55:48 PM UTC+3 meeke...@gmail.com 
> (Brent) wrote:
>
> Decoherence has gone part way in solving the when/where/what basis 
>> questions, but only part way.
>>
>
> As I wrote at the end of my first reply to your message, I share your 
> concern about decoherence but I see the glass as half-full; that is, with a 
> little more subtlety I hope that the matter can be formulated in clear 
> terms.
>
> Surely collapse is easier to handle as a general concept (except, on the 
> other hand, that it requires new dynamics). I forgot to mention that *my 
> argument for deriving the Born Rule works with collapse, too* -- so it is 
> an alternative to Gleason's theorem.
>
> Here I define colapse as an irreversible process, violating unitarity of 
> course, and I keep it separate from randomisation. The latter means that 
> each outcome is somehow randomised -- an assumption we can do without.
>
> *Collapse can also be described in a many-world formulation!* It differs 
> from the no-collapse MWI only in being irreversible. 
>
>
> If you can throw away low probability branches, what's to stop you from 
> throwing away all but one?  You've already broken unitary evolution.  If 
> you read Hardy's axiomatization of QM you see that the difference between 
> QM and classical mechanics turns on a single word in Axiom 5 Continuity: 
> There exists a *continuous *reversible transformation on a system between 
> any two pure states of that system.
>
> My argument in outline is
> 1. assessment that MWI-with-collapse is workable;
> 2. therefore, outcomes of small enough measure can be neglected in 
> practice;
>
>
> Yes, I've wondered if a smallest non-zero probability could be defined 
> consistent with the data.
>
> 3. now Everett's argument can proceed, concluding that the Born Rule is a 
> practically safe assumption (to put it briefly).
>
> So I have replaced two assumptions of Gleason's theorem, randomisation and 
> non-contextuality, by the assessment of workability only.
>
> If you don't feel comfortable yet with formulating collapse in a 
> many-world setting, let us also assume randomisation (God plays dice), for 
> the sake of the argument, in a single-world formulation. That is, we ASSUME 
> the existence of probability; then the previous argument just guarantees 
> that this probability follows the Born Rule.
>
>
> Assume?  Randomness is well motivated by evidence.  And it's more random 
> than just not knowing some inherent variable, because in the EPR experiment 
> a randomized hidden variable can on explain the QM result if it's non-local.
>
>
> Of course I favour the first version of the argument, using the many-world 
> formulation of collapse, to avoid the "God plays dice" nightmare.
>
>
> Why this fear of true randomness?  We have all kinds of classical 
> randomness we just attributed to "historical accident".  Would it really 
> make any difference it were due to inherent quantum randomness?  Albrect 
> and Phillips have made an argument that there is quantum randomness even 
> nominally classical dynamics. https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953v3
>

The authors regard quantum fluctuations as fundamental. How are they 
defined? AG

>
> Brent
>
>
> Thanks for the comments so far, because they stirred my thinking and 
> motivated fresh ideas, some of which I hope will prove helpful and worth 
> discussing, if and when they mature.
>
> George K.
> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/06930c0c-5537-4fb7-bf70-fd8c7d9859b0n%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/5543471a-2280-4866-be8c-4a2d9a4918b9n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

2022-04-19 Thread smitra

On 18-04-2022 23:18, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/18/2022 12:55 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:32:36 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com
wrote:

On 4/18/2022 11:17 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:06:04 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com
wrote:

On 4/18/2022 5:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

But my main point is that acausality is tantamount to
unintelligible. IMO, there's a huge difference between being unable
to perfectly predict the time evolution of a system, and it being
uncaused. AG

Is there? Even if the unpredicitability is in-principle? What is
the huge difference?

Brent

So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG

I asked you first.

Brent

IIRC, you asked what was bugging ME, not AE. My guess is that he
thought acausality violated locality and/or realism. For example, the
Pilot Wave theory assumes each particle has a definite position and
momentum. It doesn't violate the HUP because the HUP simply limits
what we can measure. AG

I asked you "What is the huge difference?" Which you ignored and
just asked another question.

Brent

But the difference is obvious and implied. Whereas the resultant
probabilties attained might be indistinguishable, the underlying
realities are clearly distinct, say between Copenhagen and
deBroglie-Bohm (Pilot Wave theory). Since, at heart, you're an
instrumentalist, I assume the distinction for you is meaningless. AG

You can invent arbitrarily many theories of "distinct underlying
realities" which are empirically indistinguishable...that's why they
are just interpretations. The only use I see for interpretations with
no empirical difference is they may suggest better theories. I see no
other reason to prefer one interpretation over another. You might as
well introduce fairies into an interpretation or ask Deepak Chopra
which one is really real.

An issue here is that the different QM interpretations are actually
different theories that do make different predictions for certain
experiments that one can at least in principle perform. Bohm theory
invokes quantum equilibrium, without which the Born rule will be
violated. And CI and MWI make different predictions for Deutsch-type
experiments.

While it's conventional to refer to these as interpretations, it's
similar to calling special relativity and ether theory different
interpretations of electromagnetism when effects of order (v/c)^2 would
be too small to detect.

Saibal

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/c0c67139-4239-ad0d-d7be-dc0f2783e4c1%40gmail.com
[1].

Links:
--
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c0c67139-4239-ad0d-d7be-dc0f2783e4c1%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule



On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 3:55:20 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 5:46 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>  
>
>> *> the SE wouldn't be time-dependent unless the SE is time-dependent.*
>>
>
> I can't argue with that, and a banana wouldn't be a banana unless a 
> banana was a banana. 
>

And it's also not worth arguing with a shameless liar who distorts my 
comment. A'hole; go back and read it again. AG 

>  
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> beb
> p
>

-- 
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/8f70e8e7-e013-477b-8cf6-57c003a314fdn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

2022-04-19 Thread smitra

On 18-04-2022 23:18, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/18/2022 12:55 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:32:36 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com
wrote:

On 4/18/2022 11:17 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:06:04 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com
wrote:

On 4/18/2022 5:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

Is there? Even if the unpredicitability is in-principle? What is
the huge difference?

Brent

So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG

I asked you first.

Brent

I asked you "What is the huge difference?" Which you ignored and
just asked another question.

Brent

Saibal

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/c0c67139-4239-ad0d-d7be-dc0f2783e4c1%40gmail.com
[1].

Links:
--
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c0c67139-4239-ad0d-d7be-dc0f2783e4c1%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 5:46 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:


> *> the SE wouldn't be time-dependent unless the SE is time-dependent.*
>

I can't argue with that, and a banana wouldn't be a banana unless a banana
was a banana.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

beb
p

-- 
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/CAJPayv3-QCf3VYy%3DOCqFrFKtjwCeqWMuK%3DNVMKS17HN%3DX792mA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule



On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 2:43:47 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 3:01 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
> >> Schrödinger's Equation is time independent, 
>>>
>>
>> *> Then why, for example, does the solution for a free particle spread 
>> out as time progresses? AG *
>>
>
> As time progresses things change, that is in fact what time means. So if 
> something spreads out as time progresses if you reverse time then that 
> "something" would converge. Schrodinger's wave equation works in either 
> direction, no information is lost so if you know what the wave looks like 
> now you can figure out what it will look like tomorrow and also figure out 
> what it looked like yesterday.   
>

Do us all a big favor and stop the BS'ing. Solutions to the SE wouldn't be 
time-dependent unless the SE is time-dependent. It also has a 
time-independent form, which IIRC, is when it can be solved by separation 
of variables. AG 

>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> ptp
>

-- 
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/5bf8bad0-ed81-4cf2-9db7-1871cb135488n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 3:01 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

>> Schrödinger's Equation is time independent,
>>
>
> *> Then why, for example, does the solution for a free particle spread out
> as time progresses? AG *
>

As time progresses things change, that is in fact what time means. So if
something spreads out as time progresses if you reverse time then that
"something" would converge. Schrodinger's wave equation works in either
direction, no information is lost so if you know what the wave looks like
now you can figure out what it will look like tomorrow and also figure out
what it looked like yesterday.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

ptp

-- 
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/CAJPayv3cAcAxRLnxtWP1K50_YZTy5c_dvbkQoiG1o9HkGZ41BA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule



On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 10:59:20 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 12:42 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
> >> I don't need to make an argument for that because the one and only 
>>> assumption that Many Worlds makes, perhaps "axiom" would be a better word, 
>>> is that Schrödinger's Equation means what it says. 
>>>
>>
>> *> But S's equation just gives the time dependent probabilities BEFORE a 
>> measurement is taken. You've added an additional postulate without any 
>> justification.  AG*
>>
>
> Schrödinger's Equation is time independent, 
>

Then why, for example, does the solution for a free particle spread out as 
time progresses? AG 

it works just as well forwards or backwards, so "before" or "after" are 
> irrelevant terms. And Schrödinger makes no use of "measurement" and says 
> nothing about it, although it's easy enough to logically extrapolate from 
> Schrödinger's axiom and conclude that "measurement" simply means self 
> location. If you insist measurement does something more than that you're 
> going to have to add another axiom explaining exactly what that "something" 
> is and exactly what it does.
>  
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> m4x
>
>
>>>
>>> -- 
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2b91bebb-1bc0-4c85-a0ab-f0b972070f54n%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/1d9f2d4a-b66e-4db5-afc0-a4fa90b8102cn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

2022-04-19 Thread Brent Meeker

On 4/19/2022 9:24 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 12:08 PM Alan Grayson
wrote:

>/ you claim, without argument, that all possible outcomes are
realized./

I don't need to make an argument for that because the one and only
assumption that Many Worlds makes, perhaps "axiom" would be a better
word, is that Schrödinger's Equation means what it says. If you want
to claim that all outcomes allowed by Schrödinger are *NOT* realized
then you would have to introduce another axiom (a.k.a. assumption)
that restricts that number. But I remind you that Arkham's razor says
the simplest theory that explains observations is the one to be preferred.

That's not quite right though. According the SE there are no outcomes.
The world vector in Hilbert space just keeps rotating around in the
infinite dimensional space and by some means there are preferred bases
such that in those bases sort-of-classical thing seem to happen...but
don't really because it's all reversible.

Brent

John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis

ems

--
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/CAJPayv0%3DdrSD81NYsnsBYdEnfd1R9s%2BihOdYRmaCaibkqczVMQ%40mail.gmail.com
.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 12:42 PM Alan Grayson 
wrote:

>> I don't need to make an argument for that because the one and only
>> assumption that Many Worlds makes, perhaps "axiom" would be a better word,
>> is that Schrödinger's Equation means what it says.
>>
>
> *> But S's equation just gives the time dependent probabilities BEFORE a
> measurement is taken. You've added an additional postulate without any
> justification.  AG*
>

Schrödinger's Equation is time independent, it works just as well forwards
or backwards, so "before" or "after" are irrelevant terms. And Schrödinger
makes no use of "measurement" and says nothing about it, although it's easy
enough to logically extrapolate from Schrödinger's axiom and conclude that
"measurement" simply means self location. If you insist measurement does
something more than that you're going to have to add another axiom
explaining exactly what that "something" is and exactly what it does.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

m4x

>>
>> --
> 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/2b91bebb-1bc0-4c85-a0ab-f0b972070f54n%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/CAJPayv0F08E%3DQRpMu%3D-ObAB5Rze6CRLLLabUuh%2By6fpSyh_Lyw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule



On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 10:24:51 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 12:08 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
> >* you claim, without argument, that all possible outcomes are realized.*
>>
>
> I don't need to make an argument for that because the one and only 
> assumption that Many Worlds makes, perhaps "axiom" would be a better word, 
> is that Schrödinger's Equation means what it says. 
>

But S's equation just gives the time dependent probabilities BEFORE a 
measurement is taken. You've added an additional postulate without any 
justification.  AG
 

> If you want to claim that all outcomes allowed by Schrödinger are *NOT* 
> realized then you would have to introduce another axiom (a.k.a. assumption) 
> that restricts that number. But I remind you that Arkham's razor says the 
> simplest theory that explains observations is the one to be preferred.
>
>  
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> ems
>
>
>

-- 
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/2b91bebb-1bc0-4c85-a0ab-f0b972070f54n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 12:08 PM Alan Grayson 
wrote:

>* you claim, without argument, that all possible outcomes are realized.*
>

I don't need to make an argument for that because the one and only
assumption that Many Worlds makes, perhaps "axiom" would be a better word,
is that Schrödinger's Equation means what it says. If you want to claim
that all outcomes allowed by Schrödinger are *NOT* realized then you would
have to introduce another axiom (a.k.a. assumption) that restricts that
number. But I remind you that Arkham's razor says the simplest theory that
explains observations is the one to be preferred.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

ems

-- 
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/CAJPayv0%3DdrSD81NYsnsBYdEnfd1R9s%2BihOdYRmaCaibkqczVMQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule



On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 9:53:06 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 11:31 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
> > * If S's equation represented a horse race, with probabilities changing 
>> during the race -- of the order of final results -- why do you think the 
>> race continues in other worlds, with all combinations of outcomes?*
>
>
> Because until Alan Grayson sees the end of the race, or somebody tells 
> Alan Grayson about it, Alan Grayson can't be certain what world Alan 
> Grayson is in. Alan Grayson could be in a world where horse *X* won or Alan 
> Grayson could be in a world where horse* Y* won, until Alan Grayson 
> receives more information Alan Grayson would have to say the odds are 
> 50-50.
>

Not necessarily 50-50. Depends on how many horses are in the race. But much 
more important is you claim, without argument, that all possible outcomes 
are realized, most or many in other worlds. Never any justification of that 
MIS-interpretation of probability. AG 

>
> Yes I know the above sounds awkward but, as I've said many times before, 
> when discussing matters of this sort personal pronouns have no uniquely 
> specified subject. 
>
> *> We've discussed this before, many times.*
>
>
> We certainly have.  
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> yui
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 4:43:00 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 2:17 PM Alan Grayson  
>>> wrote:
>>>

>>> *> the Pilot Wave theory assumes each particle has a definite position 
 and momentum.*

>>>
>>> That's true but unlike Many Worlds Pilot Wave theory is non-local, it 
>>> postulates there is a mysterious force of some sort that is undiminished by 
>>> distance in which two particles billions of light years apart can INSTANTLY 
>>> affect each other without affecting anything in between. It seems to me if 
>>> that were the case then we'd have to know everything before we could know 
>>> anything, and that does not conform with observation because although we 
>>> don't know everything we do know some things. If the universe was really 
>>> non-local we couldn't even make approximate predictions regardless of if 
>>> things were deterministic or not.
>>>
>>> Copenhagen assumes a particle has NO position and momentum if it has 
>>> not been measured. Pilot Wave theory assumes  a particle has ONE position 
>>> and momentum if it has not been measured. Many Worlds assumes 
>>> Schrodinger's equation means what it says so a particle has EVERY position 
>>> and momentum the equation allows regardless of if it has been measured or 
>>> not. 
>>>
>>> > It doesn't violate the HUP because the HUP simply limits what we can 
 measure.

>>>
>>> Then you should like Many Worlds because it says everything happens 
>>> because of Schrodinger's equation, and Schrodinger's equation is 100% 
>>> deterministic.
>>>
>>
>> We've discussed this before, many times. If S's equation represented a 
>> horse race, with probabilities changing during the race -- of the order of 
>> final results -- why do you think the race continues in other worlds, with 
>> all combinations of outcomes? I think you egregiously misinterpret what S's 
>> equation is telling us.  AG
>>
>> Many Worlds explains why that, although from the multiverse point of view 
>>> things are as deterministic as Schrödinger's equation, to any particular 
>>> observer in one of those worlds there would be a limit to how accurate his 
>>> predictions can be.
>>>
>>> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
>>> 
>>> tpw
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b11a3af9-77cb-4de8-92e0-adb37e99e123n%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/a2b58a7d-6972-4104-a890-a7bbc357582en%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 11:31 AM Alan Grayson 
wrote:

> * If S's equation represented a horse race, with probabilities changing
> during the race -- of the order of final results -- why do you think the
> race continues in other worlds, with all combinations of outcomes?*


Because until Alan Grayson sees the end of the race, or somebody tells Alan
Grayson about it, Alan Grayson can't be certain what world Alan Grayson is
in. Alan Grayson could be in a world where horse *X* won or Alan Grayson could
be in a world where horse* Y* won, until Alan Grayson receives more
information Alan Grayson would have to say the odds are 50-50.

Yes I know the above sounds awkward but, as I've said many times before,
when discussing matters of this sort personal pronouns have no uniquely
specified subject.

*> We've discussed this before, many times.*


We certainly have.
John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

yui









>
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 4:43:00 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 2:17 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>>
>> *> the Pilot Wave theory assumes each particle has a definite position
>>> and momentum.*
>>>
>>
>> That's true but unlike Many Worlds Pilot Wave theory is non-local, it
>> postulates there is a mysterious force of some sort that is undiminished by
>> distance in which two particles billions of light years apart can INSTANTLY
>> affect each other without affecting anything in between. It seems to me if
>> that were the case then we'd have to know everything before we could know
>> anything, and that does not conform with observation because although we
>> don't know everything we do know some things. If the universe was really
>> non-local we couldn't even make approximate predictions regardless of if
>> things were deterministic or not.
>>
>> Copenhagen assumes a particle has NO position and momentum if it has not
>> been measured. Pilot Wave theory assumes  a particle has ONE position
>> and momentum if it has not been measured. Many Worlds assumes
>> Schrodinger's equation means what it says so a particle has EVERY position
>> and momentum the equation allows regardless of if it has been measured or
>> not.
>>
>> > It doesn't violate the HUP because the HUP simply limits what we can
>>> measure.
>>>
>>
>> Then you should like Many Worlds because it says everything happens
>> because of Schrodinger's equation, and Schrodinger's equation is 100%
>> deterministic.
>>
>
> We've discussed this before, many times. If S's equation represented a
> horse race, with probabilities changing during the race -- of the order of
> final results -- why do you think the race continues in other worlds, with
> all combinations of outcomes? I think you egregiously misinterpret what S's
> equation is telling us.  AG
>
> Many Worlds explains why that, although from the multiverse point of view
>> things are as deterministic as Schrödinger's equation, to any particular
>> observer in one of those worlds there would be a limit to how accurate his
>> predictions can be.
>>
>> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
>> 
>> tpw
>>
>>
>> --
> 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/b11a3af9-77cb-4de8-92e0-adb37e99e123n%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/CAJPayv0%2Bm_NEEovSGFBjhPoj63yb-6rG17aRWVuoE-NA9N-owQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule



On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 4:43:00 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 2:17 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>
>>
> *> the Pilot Wave theory assumes each particle has a definite position and 
>> momentum.*
>>
>
> That's true but unlike Many Worlds Pilot Wave theory is non-local, it 
> postulates there is a mysterious force of some sort that is undiminished by 
> distance in which two particles billions of light years apart can INSTANTLY 
> affect each other without affecting anything in between. It seems to me if 
> that were the case then we'd have to know everything before we could know 
> anything, and that does not conform with observation because although we 
> don't know everything we do know some things. If the universe was really 
> non-local we couldn't even make approximate predictions regardless of if 
> things were deterministic or not.
>
> Copenhagen assumes a particle has NO position and momentum if it has not 
> been measured. Pilot Wave theory assumes  a particle has ONE position and 
> momentum if it has not been measured. Many Worlds assumes Schrodinger's 
> equation means what it says so a particle has EVERY position and momentum 
> the equation allows regardless of if it has been measured or not. 
>
> > It doesn't violate the HUP because the HUP simply limits what we can 
>> measure.
>>
>
> Then you should like Many Worlds because it says everything happens 
> because of Schrodinger's equation, and Schrodinger's equation is 100% 
> deterministic.
>

We've discussed this before, many times. If S's equation represented a 
horse race, with probabilities changing during the race -- of the order of 
final results -- why do you think the race continues in other worlds, with 
all combinations of outcomes? I think you egregiously misinterpret what S's 
equation is telling us.  AG

Many Worlds explains why that, although from the multiverse point of view 
> things are as deterministic as Schrödinger's equation, to any particular 
> observer in one of those worlds there would be a limit to how accurate his 
> predictions can be.
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> tpw
>
>
>

-- 
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/b11a3af9-77cb-4de8-92e0-adb37e99e123n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 2:17 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

>
*> the Pilot Wave theory assumes each particle has a definite position and
> momentum.*
>

That's true but unlike Many Worlds Pilot Wave theory is non-local, it
postulates there is a mysterious force of some sort that is undiminished by
distance in which two particles billions of light years apart can INSTANTLY
affect each other without affecting anything in between. It seems to me if
that were the case then we'd have to know everything before we could know
anything, and that does not conform with observation because although we
don't know everything we do know some things. If the universe was really
non-local we couldn't even make approximate predictions regardless of if
things were deterministic or not.

Copenhagen assumes a particle has NO position and momentum if it has not
been measured. Pilot Wave theory assumes  a particle has ONE position and
momentum if it has not been measured. Many Worlds assumes Schrodinger's
equation means what it says so a particle has EVERY position and momentum
the equation allows regardless of if it has been measured or not.

> It doesn't violate the HUP because the HUP simply limits what we can
> measure.
>

Then you should like Many Worlds because it says everything happens because
of Schrodinger's equation, and Schrodinger's equation is 100%
deterministic. Many Worlds also explains why that, although from the
multiverse point of view things are as deterministic as Schrödinger's
equation, to any particular observer in one of those worlds there would be
a limit to how accurate his predictions can be.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

tpw

-- 
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/CAJPayv1BGW3kvTVNUXf0cYRJSmMmLvJW997s-uvpSRFfw_T_KQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On 4/18/2022 5:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 3:18:43 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

On 4/18/2022 12:55 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:32:36 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com
wrote:

On 4/18/2022 11:17 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:06:04 PM UTC-6
meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

On 4/18/2022 5:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

But my main point is that acausality is tantamount
to unintelligible. IMO, there's a huge difference
between being unable to perfectly predict the time
evolution of a system, and it being uncaused. AG

Is there? Even if the unpredicitability is
in-principle? What is the huge difference?

Brent

So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in
QM? AG

I asked you first.

Brent

IIRC, you asked what was bugging ME, not AE. My guess is
that he thought acausality violated locality and/or realism.
For example, the Pilot Wave theory assumes each particle has
a definite position and momentum. It doesn't violate the HUP
because the HUP simply limits what we can measure. AG

I asked you "What is the huge difference?" Which you ignored
and just asked another question.

Brent

You can invent arbitrarily many theories of "distinct underlying
realities" which are empirically indistinguishable...that's why
they are just interpretations. The only use I see for
interpretations with no empirical difference is they may suggest
better theories. I see no other reason to prefer one
interpretation over another. You might as well introduce fairies
into an interpretation or ask Deepak Chopra which one is really real.

Brent

So if someone, like Bohr, comes up with a lawless universe, that's
fine with you; or do you deny the lawlessness? AG

A lawless universe that is predictable per the Schroedinger equation??
What does that mean?

Brent

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule



On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 3:18:43 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On 4/18/2022 12:55 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:32:36 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4/18/2022 11:17 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:06:04 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/18/2022 5:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> But my main point is that acausality is tantamount to unintelligible. 
 IMO, there's a huge difference between being unable to perfectly predict 
 the time evolution of a system, and it being uncaused. AG


 Is there?  Even if the unpredicitability is in-principle?  What is the 
 huge difference?

 Brent

>>>
>>>  So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG
>>>
>>>
>>> I asked you first.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> IIRC, you asked what was bugging ME, not AE. My guess is that he thought 
>> acausality violated locality and/or realism. For example, the Pilot Wave 
>> theory assumes each particle has a definite position and momentum. It 
>> doesn't violate the HUP because the HUP simply limits what we can measure. 
>> AG
>>
>>
>> I asked you  "What is the huge difference?"  Which you ignored and just 
>> asked another question.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> But the difference is obvious and implied. Whereas the resultant 
> probabilties attained might be indistinguishable, the underlying realities 
> are clearly distinct, say between Copenhagen and deBroglie-Bohm (Pilot Wave 
> theory). Since, at heart, you're an instrumentalist, I assume the 
> distinction for you is meaningless.  AG 
>
>
> You can invent arbitrarily many theories of "distinct underlying 
> realities" which are empirically indistinguishable...that's why they are 
> just interpretations.  The only use I see for interpretations with no 
> empirical difference is they may suggest better theories.  I see no other 
> reason to prefer one interpretation over another.  You might as well 
> introduce fairies into an interpretation or ask Deepak Chopra which one is 
> really real.
>
> Brent
>

So if someone, like Bohr, comes up with a lawless universe, that's fine 
with you; or do you deny the lawlessness? 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/5b148147-f594-48b2-8432-46669f7d3c6fn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

2022-04-18 Thread George Kahrimanis

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 3:35:22 PM UTC+3 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG
>

I think I have come to a crisp understanding of this issue, which I want to
submit to you. However, we must take into consideration that the notion of
probability many scientists have these days is very different from the one
implied in Einstein's comment "God doesn't play dice".

Einstein seems to have a good old-fashioned understanding of probability
based on rolling the dice, shuffling the deck, and so on, which has also
been formalised as "Kolmogorov complexity". That is, a shuffling
complicated enough to make it technically impossible to run the needed
calculations in the next 15 seconds, say, in which I am obliged to play my
hand. Of course I trust that no other players in this game can run such
calculations in the prescribed time (I trust with "moral certainty", not
with absolute certainty).

This outlook of probability is incompatible with certain currently popular
views of probability. For one, entropy considerations are irrelevant in
general, unless when they just describe shuffling in other words. So-called
Bayesian priors are also baseless strictly speaking, though they do serve
in a "let us try this" approach.

One more notion to shed is that of propability issuing from ANY theoretical
probabilistic model, for example conventional QM. (Surely, if you are
comfortable with the latter, then Einstein's comment is meaningless!) I
cite an important (I think) philosophical work by Wolfgang Schwarz: "No
Interpretation of Probability" Erkenntnis 83, 1195–1212 (2018),
. He argued that such models do
NOT issue probability; they issue just numbers which the users ACCEPT AS
probabilities -- in whatever interpretation of probability one assumes as
fundamental. This is the key to understanding Einstein's comment.

So, in plain words, Einstein's comment means the following. If the
interpretation of QM treats normalised measures as probabilities, we need
to understand this in terms of our basic notion of probability, that is
shuffling the deck or rolling the dice. So in each measurement someone must
roll dice or something, in order that probability will arise. Since QM does
not allow for such a mechanism, we are left to trusting that probabilities
issued by QM are as good AS IF generated by a randomising mechanism (of a
familiar kind). This "as if" creates a doubt whether the notion of
probability from QM is equivalent to that from shuffling. This is not a
silly question, because it has relevance to decision theory (in particular,
on whether Maximisation of Expected Utility is a rationally justified
method).

George K.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

On 4/18/2022 12:55 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:32:36 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

On 4/18/2022 11:17 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:06:04 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com
wrote:

On 4/18/2022 5:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

But my main point is that acausality is tantamount to
unintelligible. IMO, there's a huge difference between
being unable to perfectly predict the time evolution of
a system, and it being uncaused. AG

Is there? Even if the unpredicitability is
in-principle? What is the huge difference?

Brent

So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG

I asked you first.

Brent

IIRC, you asked what was bugging ME, not AE. My guess is that he
thought acausality violated locality and/or realism. For example,
the Pilot Wave theory assumes each particle has a definite
position and momentum. It doesn't violate the HUP because the HUP
simply limits what we can measure. AG

I asked you "What is the huge difference?" Which you ignored and
just asked another question.

Brent

You can invent arbitrarily many theories of "distinct underlying
realities" which are empirically indistinguishable...that's why they are
just interpretations. The only use I see for interpretations with no
empirical difference is they may suggest better theories. I see no
other reason to prefer one interpretation over another. You might as
well introduce fairies into an interpretation or ask Deepak Chopra which
one is really real.

Brent

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule



On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:32:36 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On 4/18/2022 11:17 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:06:04 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4/18/2022 5:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> But my main point is that acausality is tantamount to unintelligible. 
>>> IMO, there's a huge difference between being unable to perfectly predict 
>>> the time evolution of a system, and it being uncaused. AG
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there?  Even if the unpredicitability is in-principle?  What is the 
>>> huge difference?
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>>  So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG
>>
>>
>> I asked you first.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> IIRC, you asked what was bugging ME, not AE. My guess is that he thought 
> acausality violated locality and/or realism. For example, the Pilot Wave 
> theory assumes each particle has a definite position and momentum. It 
> doesn't violate the HUP because the HUP simply limits what we can measure. 
> AG
>
>
> I asked you  "What is the huge difference?"  Which you ignored and just 
> asked another question.
>
> Brent
>

And you ignored the additional information/interpretation that I offered. 
Oh, FWIW, according to Scerir QM is half-pregnant. 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/34db0794-c9ad-4750-a3bf-bb89e974a532n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule



On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:32:36 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On 4/18/2022 11:17 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:06:04 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4/18/2022 5:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> But my main point is that acausality is tantamount to unintelligible. 
>>> IMO, there's a huge difference between being unable to perfectly predict 
>>> the time evolution of a system, and it being uncaused. AG
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there?  Even if the unpredicitability is in-principle?  What is the 
>>> huge difference?
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>>  So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG
>>
>>
>> I asked you first.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> IIRC, you asked what was bugging ME, not AE. My guess is that he thought 
> acausality violated locality and/or realism. For example, the Pilot Wave 
> theory assumes each particle has a definite position and momentum. It 
> doesn't violate the HUP because the HUP simply limits what we can measure. 
> AG
>
>
> I asked you  "What is the huge difference?"  Which you ignored and just 
> asked another question.
>
> Brent
>

But the difference is obvious and implied. Whereas the resultant 
probabilties attained might be indistinguishable, the underlying realities 
are clearly distinct, say between Copenhagen and deBroglie-Bohm (Pilot Wave 
theory). Since, at heart, you're an instrumentalist, I assume the 
distinction for you is meaningless.  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/19a9b203-74d3-46df-8421-f157c05fcfa8n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule




On 4/18/2022 11:17 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:06:04 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:



On 4/18/2022 5:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



But my main point is that acausality is tantamount to
unintelligible. IMO, there's a huge difference between being
unable to perfectly predict the time evolution of a system,
and it being uncaused. AG


Is there?  Even if the unpredicitability is in-principle? 
What is the huge difference?

Brent


 So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG


I asked you first.

Brent


IIRC, you asked what was bugging ME, not AE. My guess is that he 
thought acausality violated locality and/or realism. For example, the 
Pilot Wave theory assumes each particle has a definite position and 
momentum. It doesn't violate the HUP because the HUP simply limits 
what we can measure. AG


I asked you  "What is the huge difference?"  Which you ignored and just 
asked another question.


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/3820362a-7c02-afdf-50ea-137800e6376b%40gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule



On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:17:45 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:06:04 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4/18/2022 5:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> But my main point is that acausality is tantamount to unintelligible. 
>>> IMO, there's a huge difference between being unable to perfectly predict 
>>> the time evolution of a system, and it being uncaused. AG
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there?  Even if the unpredicitability is in-principle?  What is the 
>>> huge difference?
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>>  So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG
>>
>>
>> I asked you first.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> IIRC, you asked what was bugging ME, not AE. My guess is that he thought 
> acausality violated locality and/or realism. For example, the Pilot Wave 
> theory assumes each particle has a definite position and momentum. It 
> doesn't violate the HUP because the HUP simply limits what we can measure. 
> AG
>

Or maybe AE objected to the Copenhagen view that properties don't exist 
prior to measurement. This would certainly be acausal since all processes 
take finite time intervals to occur, which Copenhagen implicitly denies. 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/e764522b-bc90-4cf1-9f68-25b506a68662n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule



On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:06:04 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On 4/18/2022 5:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> But my main point is that acausality is tantamount to unintelligible. IMO, 
>> there's a huge difference between being unable to perfectly predict the 
>> time evolution of a system, and it being uncaused. AG
>>
>>
>> Is there?  Even if the unpredicitability is in-principle?  What is the 
>> huge difference?
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>  So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG
>
>
> I asked you first.
>
> Brent
>

IIRC, you asked what was bugging ME, not AE. My guess is that he thought 
acausality violated locality and/or realism. For example, the Pilot Wave 
theory assumes each particle has a definite position and momentum. It 
doesn't violate the HUP because the HUP simply limits what we can measure. 
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/a9f6a7a2-5f4e-4ea2-96be-e48c3d300285n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule




On 4/18/2022 5:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



But my main point is that acausality is tantamount to
unintelligible. IMO, there's a huge difference between being
unable to perfectly predict the time evolution of a system, and
it being uncaused. AG


Is there?  Even if the unpredicitability is in-principle? What is
the huge difference?

Brent


 So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG


I asked you first.

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/ec8732cf-ed77-f66f-a7e4-075abef974cc%40gmail.com.

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule



On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 9:16:34 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On 4/17/2022 6:33 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> I was aware of the limitation on *precision* implied by the HUP. I was 
> addressing whether *simultaneous* measurements are possible despite the 
> HUP. I think they are possible. 
>
>
> The HUP directly refers ideal measurements which are preparations.  Each 
> destructive measurement can simultaneously measure conjugate variables to 
> arbitrary precision.  But repeating the destructive measurements on exactly 
> the same prepared system will then give a scatter of answers which 
> satisfies the HUP.
>
>
> But my main point is that acausality is tantamount to unintelligible. IMO, 
> there's a huge difference between being unable to perfectly predict the 
> time evolution of a system, and it being uncaused. AG
>
>
> Is there?  Even if the unpredicitability is in-principle?  What is the 
> huge difference?
>
> Brent
>

 So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG

>
>
> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 6:19:44 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> The authors point out that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle limits 
>> the accuracy of determining initial conditions even if the physics of 
>> evolution is perfectly deterministic.
>>
>> I addressed your issue because you posted it here...as a courtesy.  If 
>> you don't want it addressed...why post it.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> On 4/17/2022 4:11 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> No. I didn't read your original post on this thread. But I see the 
>> authors assume quantum fluctuations, and therefore deny causalty. You get 
>> what you pay for. In my example, there surely are *caused* 
>> probabilities, even if we don't have complete understanding of the initial 
>> conditions. But why address my issue if a link satisfies you? AG
>>
>> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 4:01:03 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/17/2022 7:11 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> A simple example of your point is a gas at some temperature and 
>>> pressure, confined in some volume. For a given particle in the ensemble, we 
>>> can't determine its exact path because we lack information about its 
>>> interactions. But if we had that knowledge, we could determine its exact 
>>> path, and any uncertainties in that information would translate into 
>>> uncertainties in its path. But inherent randomness in QM is different and 
>>> probably has nothing to do with the UP. 
>>>
>>> Did you read the paper I cited?:  https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953v3
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>> For example, for a small uncertainty in position, there is a large 
>>> uncertainty in velocity, so we *can* get simultaneous measurements of 
>>> position and velocity, but the latter will manifest large fluctuations for 
>>> succeeding measurements. Thus, the "inherent randomness" in QM is the 
>>> assumption that every individual trial or outcome of a measurement is 
>>> UNcaused; that is, the particular outcome can't be traced to some prior 
>>> state -- what AE called God playing dice with the universe. AG
>>>  
>>> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 6:34:51 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:; 
>>>
 Consider the converse.  When you comprehend some physical evolution, is 
 it essential that it be deterministic.  Every event has many causes, do 
 you 
 have to know every one of them to comprehend it?  Think of all the things 
 you would have to say did NOT happen in order that your comprehension be 
 complete.  The way I look at it, we call classical mechanics deterministic 
 only because *most of the time* there are a few (not a bazillion) 
 factors we can *approximately determine* in advance, so that an* 
 almost* certain prediction, *within a range of uncertainty*, is 
 possible.  Even within strict determinism there are at this very moment 
 gamma rays from distant supernova approaching you and which cannot be 
 predicted but which might influence your thoughts and instruments.

 Brent


 On 4/16/2022 5:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

 I think you're fooling yourself if you think a non-determinsitic 
 process is comprehensible. AG

 On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:46:09 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

>
>
> On 4/16/2022 4:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:03:55 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4/16/2022 2:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 1:44:09 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/16/2022 8:34 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course I favour the first version of the argument, using the 
 many-world formulation of collapse, to avoid the "God plays dice" 
 nightmare.


 Why this fear of true randomness?  We have all kinds of

Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule