subject:"The All"



On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 2:12:00 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/24/2019 8:44 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: 
> > The many-histories is a logical consequence of the theory. To assume a 
> > theory without accepting its consequence is just wrong, or irrational. 
>
> The theory, quantum mechanics, is probabilistic. 
>
> Brent 
>



I didn't write that. Obviously.
I would write pretty much its contradiction. 

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/284d774d-6683-460b-9ebe-59d117cedb17%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-24 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List





On 9/24/2019 8:44 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
The many-histories is a logical consequence of the theory. To assume a 
theory without accepting its consequence is just wrong, or irrational.


The theory, quantum mechanics, is probabilistic.

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/10a967e4-f783-9082-e679-c06897a031eb%40verizon.net.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-24 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 9/24/2019 1:22 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 3:05:39 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 1:36:42 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift
wrote:

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 8:44:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 9/23/2019 6:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:44:49 PM UTC-6, Brent
wrote:

On 9/23/2019 11:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

/But other quantum experts use decoherence to
explain quantum phenomena without invoking multiple
universes./

"Without invoking" doesn't mean "denying".

It does if you believe in applying Occam's Razor. AG

True. But I'm still waiting for pt to quote this expert
saying he explains quantum phenomena without MW. He keeps
implying it's Zurek, but I just read Zurek's paper on
quantum Darwinism again and ISTM Zurek is assuming MWI
throughout. QD is just his solution to the basis problem.

Brent

Zurek is not on a book tour, nor does he tweet, but after the
rollout of Carroll's book, one can only conclude:

* Many Worlds is religion, not science.*

@philipthrift

Right. You'll notice how my comment that the MWI is tantamount to
"hubris on steroids" was never responded to. Hopefully, he'll be
denied tenure, and his book and personage can go into the dustbin
of history, where it belongs. AG

I can't believe (well, I guess I can believe) the number of physicist
who think MWI is a valuable contribution to science. If you tell them
otherwise they they you that you don't understand physics. Many Worlds
is "in the math" (as Sean Carroll claims) so it must be true.

They engage in magical thinking, but think they are doing science.
Amazing.

Sounds like the evangelicals of one religion attacking another.

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/ce724f2b-33d8-10f2-257a-b5ff4b026034%40verizon.net.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-24 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 9/24/2019 12:36 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 8:44:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:



On 9/23/2019 6:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:44:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 9/23/2019 11:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

/But other quantum experts use decoherence to explain
quantum phenomena without invoking multiple universes./


"Without invoking" doesn't mean "denying".


It does if you believe in applying Occam's Razor. AG


True.  But I'm still waiting for pt to quote this expert saying he
explains quantum phenomena without MW.  He keeps implying it's
Zurek, but I just read Zurek's paper on quantum Darwinism again
and ISTM Zurek is assuming MWI throughout.  QD is just his
solution to the basis problem.

Brent





Zurek is not on a book tour, nor does he tweet, but after the rollout 
of Carroll's book, one can only conclude:


But he writes papers.  "Quantum Theory of the Classical: Quantum Jumps, 
Born’s Rule, and Objective Classical Reality via Quantum Darwinism" He 
seems ambivalent about multiple worlds, using Everett's relative state, 
but saying the branches need not be equally real:


/Existential interpretation of quantum theory assigns “relatively 
objective existence” (Zurek, 1998b) – key to effective classicality – to 
widely broadcast quantum states. It is obviously consistent with the 
relative state interpretation: Redundancy of records disseminated 
throughout the environment supplies a natural definition of branches 
that are classical in the sense that an observer can find out 
macroscopic features of his branch and stay on it, rather than “cut off 
the branch he is sitting on” with his measurement.


/Zurek takes an operational view of what is "real" and so many quantum 
states are not real, because they cannot be determined.  He apparently 
thinks that all the branches of MWI cannot be real because there is not 
enough information capacity in the universe to determine them all.  But 
in his examples he is always concerned with the density matrix: 
objectively determining what the pointer variables can be and showing 
how einselection implies a probability measure/. / So his attitude is 
like Omnes...once you have a diagonal density matrix you have a 
probabilistic theory and so it predicts probabilities.


So maybe I was wrong about whether Zurek would say there was a branch on 
which Neanderthals still existed.  He might say there's not enough room 
for the universe to carry that information.


Brent



*          Many Worlds is religion, not science.*

@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9a02595e-7e5e-4f6d-b4ee-d75fd48d0a33%40googlegroups.com 
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9a02595e-7e5e-4f6d-b4ee-d75fd48d0a33%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1932e44c-47a8-8b70-f47d-0f658c0e4aa3%40verizon.net.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is



On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 6:23:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 24 Sep 2019, at 10:22, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 3:05:39 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 1:36:42 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 8:44:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:



 On 9/23/2019 6:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:44:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 9/23/2019 11:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> *But other quantum experts use decoherence to explain quantum 
> phenomena without invoking multiple universes.*
>
>
> "Without invoking" doesn't mean "denying". 
>

 It does if you believe in applying Occam's Razor. AG 


 True.  But I'm still waiting for pt to quote this expert saying he 
 explains quantum phenomena without MW.  He keeps implying it's Zurek, but 
 I 
 just read Zurek's paper on quantum Darwinism again and ISTM Zurek is 
 assuming MWI throughout.  QD is just his solution to the basis problem.

 Brent



>>>
>>>
>>> Zurek is not on a book tour, nor does he tweet, but after the rollout of 
>>> Carroll's book, one can only conclude:
>>>
>>> *  Many Worlds is religion, not science.*
>>>
>>> @philipthrift 
>>>
>>
>>  Right. You'll notice how my comment that the MWI is tantamount to 
>> "hubris on steroids" was never responded to. Hopefully, he'll be denied 
>> tenure, and his book and personage can go into the dustbin of history, 
>> where it belongs. AG 
>>
>
>
>
> I can't believe (well, I guess I can believe) the number of physicist who 
> think MWI is a valuable contribution to science.  If you tell them 
> otherwise they they you that you don't understand physics. Many Worlds is 
> "in the math" (as Sean Carroll claims) so it must be true.
>
> They engage in magical thinking, but think they are doing science. Amazing.
>
>
> The many-histories is a logical consequence of the theory. To assume a 
> theory without accepting its consequence is just wrong, or irrational.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
Which specific theory formulation are you talking about?

There's *quantum measure theory*:

Axioms in section 2: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.0589.pdf

But I don't see where Many Worlds as Carroll presents them are necessarily 
implied by these axioms.

@philipthrift

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d3cd0dab-58b7-4c1e-893f-f9c7821f9735%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is


> On 24 Sep 2019, at 10:22, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 3:05:39 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 1:36:42 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 8:44:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/23/2019 6:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:44:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 9/23/2019 11:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> But other quantum experts use decoherence to explain quantum phenomena 
>>> without invoking multiple universes.
>> 
>> "Without invoking" doesn't mean "denying". 
>> 
>> It does if you believe in applying Occam's Razor. AG 
> 
> True.  But I'm still waiting for pt to quote this expert saying he explains 
> quantum phenomena without MW.  He keeps implying it's Zurek, but I just read 
> Zurek's paper on quantum Darwinism again and ISTM Zurek is assuming MWI 
> throughout.  QD is just his solution to the basis problem.
> 
> Brent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zurek is not on a book tour, nor does he tweet, but after the rollout of 
> Carroll's book, one can only conclude:
> 
>   Many Worlds is religion, not science.
> 
> @philipthrift 
> 
>  Right. You'll notice how my comment that the MWI is tantamount to "hubris on 
> steroids" was never responded to. Hopefully, he'll be denied tenure, and his 
> book and personage can go into the dustbin of history, where it belongs. AG 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe (well, I guess I can believe) the number of physicist who 
> think MWI is a valuable contribution to science.  If you tell them otherwise 
> they they you that you don't understand physics. Many Worlds is "in the math" 
> (as Sean Carroll claims) so it must be true.
> 
> They engage in magical thinking, but think they are doing science. Amazing.

The many-histories is a logical consequence of the theory. To assume a theory 
without accepting its consequence is just wrong, or irrational.

Bruno




> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6275ff15-1724-47c5-9351-06c159cb50e1%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/DEAC9B8D-0430-4254-B704-B90E4B2AD9BA%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is


> On 24 Sep 2019, at 09:36, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 8:44:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/23/2019 6:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:44:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 9/23/2019 11:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> But other quantum experts use decoherence to explain quantum phenomena 
>>> without invoking multiple universes.
>> 
>> "Without invoking" doesn't mean "denying". 
>> 
>> It does if you believe in applying Occam's Razor. AG 
> 
> True.  But I'm still waiting for pt to quote this expert saying he explains 
> quantum phenomena without MW.  He keeps implying it's Zurek, but I just read 
> Zurek's paper on quantum Darwinism again and ISTM Zurek is assuming MWI 
> throughout.  QD is just his solution to the basis problem.
> 
> Brent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zurek is not on a book tour, nor does he tweet, but after the rollout of 
> Carroll's book, one can only conclude:
> 
>   Many Worlds is religion, not science.

The statement that Many-Worlds is true is pseudo-religion/science, OK. But the 
statement asserting that it is true that there is one unique world, or k worlds 
(any k cardinal), is pseudo-religion/science as much,  too.

Bruno



> 
> @philipthrift 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9a02595e-7e5e-4f6d-b4ee-d75fd48d0a33%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/B53ACEF2-24D3-443E-B702-5CEBAD46DA58%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is


> On 24 Sep 2019, at 03:44, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/23/2019 6:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:44:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 9/23/2019 11:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> But other quantum experts use decoherence to explain quantum phenomena 
>>> without invoking multiple universes.
>> 
>> "Without invoking" doesn't mean "denying". 
>> 
>> It does if you believe in applying Occam's Razor. AG 
> 
> True.  But I'm still waiting for pt to quote this expert saying he explains 
> quantum phenomena without MW.  He keeps implying it's Zurek, but I just read 
> Zurek's paper on quantum Darwinism again and ISTM Zurek is assuming MWI 
> throughout.  QD is just his solution to the basis problem.

I agree. The very idea of decoherence is already in Everett, and Zurek used it 
to solve the basis problem (rather successfully Imo).

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> If you're only interested in saving the phenomenon you can explain the 
>> apparent collapse by decoherence and not say anything about the other 
>> results that were predicted.  Chris Fuchs explains quantum phenomenon 
>> without either collapse or multiple universes.  
>> 
>> 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/4ee8d0a4-f6e1-49b4-a510-0886b1eae672%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/ce794814-5b69-ddd5-d1e5-048da48909e3%40verizon.net
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/DFCA6383-6757-417B-B5A8-1B7297250E50%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

> On 24 Sep 2019, at 03:24, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:44:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/23/2019 11:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> But other quantum experts use decoherence to explain quantum phenomena 
>> without invoking multiple universes.
> 
> "Without invoking" doesn't mean "denying". 
> 
> It does if you believe in applying Occam's Razor. AG 

… if you believe in the “ontological Occam’s Razor” i.e. simplest reality (OK, 
but then reality is just arithmetic)

Then if you believe in the conceptual Occam razor (i.e. simplest theory, less 
axioms), then that favours both arithmetic and, in physics, no-collapse.

There is a Galois connection between theories and models (like in algebra). 

The more axioms you have, the less models satisfied the theory, the less axioms 
you have, the more models satisfy the theory. Axioms are just logical equation, 
and you can see a model like if it was a sort of variety obeying equations, 
there too, the more equation you have, the less variety obeys to them taken 
together, and vice versa.

The original Occam’s razor is about the axioms, not the models. If I remember 
correctly.

Note that once a theory is Turing universal, it has an infinity of non 
isomorphic models, but their relative measure can be different.

Bruno

> 
> If you're only interested in saving the phenomenon you can explain the 
> apparent collapse by decoherence and not say anything about the other results 
> that were predicted.  Chris Fuchs explains quantum phenomenon without either 
> collapse or multiple universes.  
> 
> 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/4ee8d0a4-f6e1-49b4-a510-0886b1eae672%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/678D7D64-2C59-409B-9D00-6E513E4D1B14%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is



> On 23 Sep 2019, at 22:54, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/23/2019 11:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> By isolating the system, you can avoid “future entanglement”, and dismiss 
>> older, but when an entanglement is made, without collapse, by linearity of 
>> both the evolution and the tensor product, it is will last forever.
> 
> Did you read Carroll's explication of the quantum erasure experiment.  He's 
> showing that it works by erasing the entanglement.
> 
> http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2019/09/21/the-notorious-delayed-choice-quantum-eraser/
> 


I might take more time, but I don’t see any erasure of entanglement, once there 
is no collapse. There is only a local or relative erasure of entanglement, like 
in entanglement swapping. But I hope I will find some time to read that text 
more carefully.

Bruno




> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a954de95-1c25-67b8-ef13-425a62f487e6%40verizon.net.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/F7DE7F59-65DE-40A0-B826-7AF425F73587%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is


> On 23 Sep 2019, at 20:59, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 1:30:35 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 20 Sep 2019, at 14:57, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 7:39:14 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 6:31:15 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 17 Sep 2019, at 16:04, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From a pragmatic perspective, I do not see any Everettian MW (theory, math, 
>>> ideas, formulations, interpretations or whatever they want to call it) in 
>>> computational quantum mechanics:
>>> 
>>> https://www.simonsfoundation.org/flatiron/center-for-computational-quantum-physics/software
>>>  
>>> <https://www.simonsfoundation.org/flatiron/center-for-computational-quantum-physics/software>
>>> 
>>> If MW were important, it would be there.
>> 
>> 
>> All computational theory (quantum or not) implies the "Many Computations”. 
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I guess. But I was looking at the actual libraries of computational QM 
>> programming repositories, and there is a lot of Monte Carlo for example but 
>> nothing explicitly Many Worlds. 
>> 
>> In Sean Carroll's advocacy of Many Worlds:
>> 
>> https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/02/19/the-wrong-objections-to-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics/
>>  
>> <https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/02/19/the-wrong-objections-to-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics/>
>> 
>> The people who object to MWI because of all those unobservable worlds 
>> <http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/06/04/does-this-ontological-commitment-make-me-look-fat/>
>>  aren’t really objecting to MWI at all; they just don’t like and/or 
>> understand quantum mechanics. Hilbert space is big, regardless of one’s 
>> personal feelings on the matter.
>> 
>> So in Sean's presentation, if you object to Many Worlds then you don't 
>> like/understand quantum mechanics.
> 
> 
> Quantum Mechanics is “many-world” right at the start, (like Mechanism). That 
> is why the founders have add the collapse postulate, but that leads all the 
> time to non-sense, or to proposal that quantum mechanics is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> [ But one could start instead with a (quantum) measure space: 
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0589 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0589> ]
>> 
>> When scientists proceed from the mathematics of any theory to an ontology of 
>> nature, they are being more of a religious guru than a scientific one.
> 
> That is correct. Even a theorem in the theology of the machine, ironically 
> perhaps.
> 
> But that is valid for a universes, whatever the cardinal a is, from zero to 
> the cardinal of Laver …
> 
> Now when doing metaphysics seriously, the number of universe and histories 
> become a subject of matter, and we can try different theories, but with 
> mechanism, it always multiplied the observers, which is annoying or pleasing 
> according to our taste, but have no voice in the matter of searching the 
> truth. 
> 
> As we cannot observe any “universe”, the consequence of the metaphysical 
> cardinal of universes must be indirect, of course. With mechanism, we get 0 
> universes, even 0 token, but infinitely many types, and when universal type 
> meet universal type, they multiply innumerably. 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A review just out by Tom Siegfried on Carroll's Many Worlds book
> 
>  
> https://www.sciencenews.org/article/sean-carroll-something-deeply-hidden-quantum-physics-many-worlds
> 
> has this: 
> 
> But other quantum experts use decoherence to explain quantum phenomena 
> without invoking multiple universes. And as Carroll admits, the decoherence 
> process does not require belief in the reality of the other branches.

The term “universe” is not well defined, and I have no clue how we can assume 
QM, and claim that decoherence eliminate the “mutiple histories”. That seems 
like pure magic to me.

Also, I don’t need quantum mechanics to believe in all computations, just 
Church’s thesis to be sure to get really *all* of them by the universal 
dovetailing or the true sigma_1 sentence.

Arithmetic, or any combinatorial algebra, admits canonical “multiple histories” 
interpretation, that no universal machine can miss, except for a finite time 
(number of steps).





> It just seems to him (and many others) to be the most elegant explanation for

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is



On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 3:05:39 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 1:36:42 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 8:44:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/23/2019 6:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:44:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 9/23/2019 11:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

 *But other quantum experts use decoherence to explain quantum phenomena 
 without invoking multiple universes.*


 "Without invoking" doesn't mean "denying". 

>>>
>>> It does if you believe in applying Occam's Razor. AG 
>>>
>>>
>>> True.  But I'm still waiting for pt to quote this expert saying he 
>>> explains quantum phenomena without MW.  He keeps implying it's Zurek, but I 
>>> just read Zurek's paper on quantum Darwinism again and ISTM Zurek is 
>>> assuming MWI throughout.  QD is just his solution to the basis problem.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Zurek is not on a book tour, nor does he tweet, but after the rollout of 
>> Carroll's book, one can only conclude:
>>
>> *  Many Worlds is religion, not science.*
>>
>> @philipthrift 
>>
>
>  Right. You'll notice how my comment that the MWI is tantamount to "hubris 
> on steroids" was never responded to. Hopefully, he'll be denied tenure, and 
> his book and personage can go into the dustbin of history, where it 
> belongs. AG 
>



I can't believe (well, I guess I can believe) the number of physicist who 
think MWI is a valuable contribution to science.  If you tell them 
otherwise they they you that you don't understand physics. Many Worlds is 
"in the math" (as Sean Carroll claims) so it must be true.

They engage in magical thinking, but think they are doing science. Amazing.

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6275ff15-1724-47c5-9351-06c159cb50e1%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-24 Thread Alan Grayson



On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 1:36:42 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 8:44:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/23/2019 6:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:44:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/23/2019 11:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>> *But other quantum experts use decoherence to explain quantum phenomena 
>>> without invoking multiple universes.*
>>>
>>>
>>> "Without invoking" doesn't mean "denying". 
>>>
>>
>> It does if you believe in applying Occam's Razor. AG 
>>
>>
>> True.  But I'm still waiting for pt to quote this expert saying he 
>> explains quantum phenomena without MW.  He keeps implying it's Zurek, but I 
>> just read Zurek's paper on quantum Darwinism again and ISTM Zurek is 
>> assuming MWI throughout.  QD is just his solution to the basis problem.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Zurek is not on a book tour, nor does he tweet, but after the rollout of 
> Carroll's book, one can only conclude:
>
> *  Many Worlds is religion, not science.*
>
> @philipthrift 
>

 Right. You'll notice how my comment that the MWI is tantamount to "hubris 
on steroids" was never responded to. Hopefully, he'll be denied tenure, and 
his book and personage can go into the dustbin of history, where it 
belongs. 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/94910851-3467-44c3-b1ef-6ae8ca293c69%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is



On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 8:44:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/23/2019 6:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:44:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/23/2019 11:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>> *But other quantum experts use decoherence to explain quantum phenomena 
>> without invoking multiple universes.*
>>
>>
>> "Without invoking" doesn't mean "denying". 
>>
>
> It does if you believe in applying Occam's Razor. AG 
>
>
> True.  But I'm still waiting for pt to quote this expert saying he 
> explains quantum phenomena without MW.  He keeps implying it's Zurek, but I 
> just read Zurek's paper on quantum Darwinism again and ISTM Zurek is 
> assuming MWI throughout.  QD is just his solution to the basis problem.
>
> Brent
>
>
>


Zurek is not on a book tour, nor does he tweet, but after the rollout of 
Carroll's book, one can only conclude:

*  Many Worlds is religion, not science.*

@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9a02595e-7e5e-4f6d-b4ee-d75fd48d0a33%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-23 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 9/23/2019 6:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:44:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:

On 9/23/2019 11:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

/But other quantum experts use decoherence to explain quantum
phenomena without invoking multiple universes./

"Without invoking" doesn't mean "denying".

It does if you believe in applying Occam's Razor. AG

True. But I'm still waiting for pt to quote this expert saying he
explains quantum phenomena without MW. He keeps implying it's Zurek,
but I just read Zurek's paper on quantum Darwinism again and ISTM Zurek
is assuming MWI throughout. QD is just his solution to the basis problem.

Brent

If you're only interested in saving the phenomenon you can explain
the /*apparent*/ collapse by decoherence and not say anything
about the other results that were predicted. Chris Fuchs explains
quantum phenomenon without either collapse or multiple universes.

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/4ee8d0a4-f6e1-49b4-a510-0886b1eae672%40googlegroups.com
.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-23 Thread Alan Grayson



On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:44:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/23/2019 11:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> *But other quantum experts use decoherence to explain quantum phenomena 
> without invoking multiple universes.*
>
>
> "Without invoking" doesn't mean "denying". 
>

It does if you believe in applying Occam's Razor. AG 

If you're only interested in saving the phenomenon you can explain the 
> *apparent* collapse by decoherence and not say anything about the other 
> results that were predicted.  Chris Fuchs explains quantum phenomenon 
> without either collapse or multiple universes.  
>
> 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/4ee8d0a4-f6e1-49b4-a510-0886b1eae672%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-23 Thread Philip Thrift

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 4:44:49 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/23/2019 11:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> *But other quantum experts use decoherence to explain quantum phenomena 
> without invoking multiple universes.*
>
>
> "Without invoking" doesn't mean "denying".  If you're only interested in 
> saving the phenomenon you can explain the *apparent* collapse by 
> decoherence and not say anything about the other results that were 
> predicted.  Chris Fuchs explains quantum phenomenon without either collapse 
> or multiple universes.  
>
> Brent 
>

This is better?

https://www.wired.com/2015/06/private-view-quantum-reality/

Quantum Bayesianism, or QBism as Fuchs now calls it, solves many of quantum 
theory’s deepest mysteries. Take, for instance, the infamous “collapse of 
the wave function,” wherein the quantum system inexplicably transitions 
from multiple simultaneous states to a single actuality. According to 
QBism, *the wave function’s “collapse” is simply the observer updating his 
or her beliefs after making a measurement. *Spooky action at a distance, 
wherein one observer’s measurement of a particle right here collapses the 
wave function of a particle way over there, turns out not to be so 
spooky—the measurement here simply provides information that the observer 
can use to bet on the state of the distant particle, should she come into 
contact with it. But how, we might ask, does her measurement here affect 
the outcome of a measurement a second observer will make over there? In 
fact, it doesn’t. *Since the wavefunction doesn’t belong to the system 
itself, each observer has her own. *My wavefunction doesn’t have to align 
with yours.

@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ccfc2289-39d8-4ceb-86d6-492253f4c7f8%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-23 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 9/23/2019 11:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
/But other quantum experts use decoherence to explain quantum 
phenomena without invoking multiple universes./


"Without invoking" doesn't mean "denying".  If you're only interested in 
saving the phenomenon you can explain the /*apparent*/ collapse by 
decoherence and not say anything about the other results that were 
predicted.  Chris Fuchs explains quantum phenomenon without either 
collapse or multiple universes.


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/ea57cef9-6f4e-1ba1-c233-39defda09c02%40verizon.net.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-23 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List





On 9/23/2019 11:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
By isolating the system, you can avoid “future entanglement”, and 
dismiss older, but when an entanglement is made, without collapse, by 
linearity of both the evolution and the tensor product, it is will 
last forever.


Did you read Carroll's explication of the quantum erasure experiment.  
He's showing that it works by erasing the entanglement.


http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2019/09/21/the-notorious-delayed-choice-quantum-eraser/

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/a954de95-1c25-67b8-ef13-425a62f487e6%40verizon.net.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-23 Thread Philip Thrift



On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 1:30:35 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Sep 2019, at 14:57, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 7:39:14 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 6:31:15 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17 Sep 2019, at 16:04, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From a pragmatic perspective, I do not see any Everettian MW (theory, 
>>> math, ideas, formulations, interpretations or whatever they want to call 
>>> it) in computational quantum mechanics:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.simonsfoundation.org/flatiron/center-for-computational-quantum-physics/software
>>>
>>> If MW were important, it would be there.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> All computational theory (quantum or not) implies the "Many 
>>> Computations”. 
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>
>
> I guess. But I was looking at the actual libraries of computational QM 
> programming repositories, and there is a lot of Monte Carlo for example but 
> nothing explicitly Many Worlds. 
>
> In Sean Carroll's advocacy of Many Worlds:
>
>
> https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/02/19/the-wrong-objections-to-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics/
>
> The people who object to MWI because of all those unobservable worlds 
> <http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/06/04/does-this-ontological-commitment-make-me-look-fat/>
>  aren’t *really* objecting to MWI at all; they just don’t like and/or 
> understand quantum mechanics. Hilbert space is big, regardless of one’s 
> personal feelings on the matter.
>
> So in Sean's presentation, if you object to Many Worlds then you don't 
> like/understand quantum mechanics.
>
>
>
> Quantum Mechanics is “many-world” right at the start, (like Mechanism). 
> That is why the founders have add the collapse postulate, but that leads 
> all the time to non-sense, or to proposal that quantum mechanics is wrong.
>
>
>
>
>
> [ But one could start instead with a (quantum) measure space: 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0589 ]
>
> *When scientists proceed from the mathematics of any theory to an ontology 
> of nature, they are being more of a religious guru than a scientific one.*
>
>
> That is correct. Even a theorem in the theology of the machine, ironically 
> perhaps.
>
> But that is valid for a universes, whatever the cardinal a is, from zero 
> to the cardinal of Laver …
>
> Now when doing metaphysics seriously, the number of universe and histories 
> become a subject of matter, and we can try different theories, but with 
> mechanism, it always multiplied the observers, which is annoying or 
> pleasing according to our taste, but have no voice in the matter of 
> searching the truth. 
>
> As we cannot observe any “universe”, the consequence of the metaphysical 
> cardinal of universes must be indirect, of course. With mechanism, we get 0 
> universes, even 0 token, but infinitely many types, and when universal type 
> meet universal type, they multiply innumerably. 
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
A review just out by Tom Siegfried on Carroll's Many Worlds book

 
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/sean-carroll-something-deeply-hidden-quantum-physics-many-worlds

has this: 

*But other quantum experts use decoherence to explain quantum phenomena 
without invoking multiple universes. And as Carroll admits, the decoherence 
process does not require belief in the reality of the other branches. It 
just seems to him (and many others) to be the most elegant explanation for 
quantum mysteries.*

This is sad and funny. The others don't have a big book tour.

I'm pretty much in agreement now more than ever with Alan G. here. The Many 
Worlds advocates are in some sort of "world" of reality denial. 


@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/97b127bb-7e06-4f9d-879f-78ea301bb12d%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is


> On 21 Sep 2019, at 19:22, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> I downloaded Carroll's book a few days ago. Will read it this weekend. 
> Current physics research indicates that everything is entangled, which of 
> course is the quantum,

Or any universal machinery seen from inside (up to some unsolved problem, to be 
honest)


> but the thinking of physicists is that every law emerged from a basic soup of 
> entanglement. 

They get nearer the first person plural phenomenological physics as implied by 
mechanism, with a simple notion of entanglement (sharing the annihilation box).

Bruno



> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: John Clark 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Sat, Sep 21, 2019 7:10 am
> Subject: Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is
> 
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:07 PM Bruno Marchal  <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:
> 
> > Our decision are classical, so (even in the Everett quantum world) they do 
> > not "create new worlds”.
> I suspect Sean Carroll is quoted out of context, as indeed that is a mistake 
> (a common one).
> 
> If there is one theme running through Sean Carroll's new book it's that 
> nothing is classical and everything is  Quantum Mechanical, and the 
> deterministic wavefunction of the Multiverse can be thought of as a 
> wavefunction of wavefunctions not of worlds because even the concept of a 
> world is just a human approximation. He suggests our current difficulties in 
> finding a theory that goes beyond General Relativity is that we're trying to 
> find something to stick onto it to make it Quantum Mechanical but nature 
> didn't start classical, it was Quantum Mechanical from day one, if there was 
> a day one and there may not have been.
> 
> John K Clark
>  
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1TaLwSSkLfpGnG6DjMJsX-OYvUvZdiPqGtd4%2BjJgAMrA%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1TaLwSSkLfpGnG6DjMJsX-OYvUvZdiPqGtd4%2BjJgAMrA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/186554.10636128.1569086576745%40mail.yahoo.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/186554.10636128.1569086576745%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/C1991A3B-7CB8-4F9D-8E73-8FB5C3CEA3F6%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is


> On 21 Sep 2019, at 13:10, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:07 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> > Our decision are classical, so (even in the Everett quantum world) they do 
> > not "create new worlds”.
> I suspect Sean Carroll is quoted out of context, as indeed that is a mistake 
> (a common one).
> 
> If there is one theme running through Sean Carroll's new book it's that 
> nothing is classical and everything is  Quantum Mechanical, and the 
> deterministic wavefunction of the Multiverse can be thought of as a 
> wavefunction of wavefunctions not of worlds because even the concept of a 
> world is just a human approximation. He suggests our current difficulties in 
> finding a theory that goes beyond General Relativity is that we're trying to 
> find something to stick onto it to make it Quantum Mechanical but nature 
> didn't start classical, it was Quantum Mechanical from day one, if there was 
> a day one and there may not have been.

And that is one hundred percent coherent with the quantum physics of the 
unievsdral Turing machine. Gold you like the relativisation of the concept of 
world (which for a logician is only an element of a set).

Bruno



> 
> John K Clark
>  
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1TaLwSSkLfpGnG6DjMJsX-OYvUvZdiPqGtd4%2BjJgAMrA%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/36F0DD60-1967-424A-A3CF-DC95921D9F97%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is


> On 20 Sep 2019, at 22:43, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 6:01:41 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 18 Sep 2019, at 21:15, Alan Grayson > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 3:01:23 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 6:33 PM Alan Grayson > wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 1:08:16 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 1:02:39 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 4:51 PM Alan Grayson > wrote:
>> On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 3:54:46 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:22 AM Alan Grayson > wrote:
>> 
>> > When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM and Relativity, 
>> > people when overboard. Now any patently absurd result finds its 
>> > justification among true believers.
>> 
>> And in this context "patently absurd" means odd, not logically contradictory 
>> not paradoxical not contrary to experimental results, just odd. But as far 
>> as we know there is no law that says nature can't behave in ways that humans 
>> find odd.
>> 
>> Many "odd" results are now mainstream, but MWI is bridge too far, way too 
>> far IMO. Why don't you just accept that the wf is simply irrelevant after 
>> the measurement occurs like in the horserace example?. Here, there's no 
>> collapse, no many worlds, no need to explain where the energy comes from 
>> which defines these worlds, and so forth? AG
>> 
>> Except that horses and horse races do not interfere (except in Australia, 
>> where several jockeys and trainers have recently been suspended for 
>> unauthorised interference -- but that is a different matter!)
>> 
>> Bruce
>> 
>> I know. I was just being illustrative. But note that Carroll says much the 
>> same thing when he says worlds are created when you make a left or right 
>> turn, or flip a coin (or some equivalent analogy). AG 
>> 
>> But suppose you flip a coin and while it's in the air, you write its wf. 
>> Since the prevailing belief is that all objects are quantum objects, why 
>> can't one suppose that the two terms in the superposition, head and tail, 
>> manifest quantum interference? AG 
>> 
>> Why can't one observe a superposition of a live cat and a dead cat? The 
>> problem is decoherence, and coin tosses are totally decohered -- no quantum 
>> superpositions left. So one is reduced to standard classical ignorance 
>> probability .
>> 
>> Bruce
>> 
>> Yes, you're getting to the core of the issue, and there's more here then 
>> (than?) meets the eye, at least mine. It seems that quantum superpositions 
>> depend on isolation and are destroyed by entanglements,
> 
> How could ever something destroyed an entanglement? 
> 
> I think any entanglement can be destroyed, or undone, by isolating a system. 
> AG 

By isolating the system, you can avoid “future entanglement”, and dismiss 
older, but when an entanglement is made, without collapse, by linearity of both 
the evolution and the tensor product, it is will last forever.

Bruno

> 
> On the contrary, the entailment with an observer will just put the observer 
> in a superposition state himself, and then assuming mechanism, you get the 
> “illusion” of a collapse, without any need of collapse.
> 
> Everett “many-worlds” is just the rather natural (for monist at least) idea 
> that a physicist obeys to the laws of physics.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
>> but exactly why that's the case remains obscure. And these entanglements 
>> also connect the micro to the macro. 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c7e0194c-57fd-4eeb-8d17-d37f33936918%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c7e0194c-57fd-4eeb-8d17-d37f33936918%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is


> On 20 Sep 2019, at 14:57, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 7:39:14 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 6:31:15 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 17 Sep 2019, at 16:04, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> From a pragmatic perspective, I do not see any Everettian MW (theory, math, 
>> ideas, formulations, interpretations or whatever they want to call it) in 
>> computational quantum mechanics:
>> 
>> https://www.simonsfoundation.org/flatiron/center-for-computational-quantum-physics/software
>>  
>> <https://www.simonsfoundation.org/flatiron/center-for-computational-quantum-physics/software>
>> 
>> If MW were important, it would be there.
> 
> 
> All computational theory (quantum or not) implies the "Many Computations”. 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess. But I was looking at the actual libraries of computational QM 
> programming repositories, and there is a lot of Monte Carlo for example but 
> nothing explicitly Many Worlds. 
> 
> In Sean Carroll's advocacy of Many Worlds:
> 
> https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/02/19/the-wrong-objections-to-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics/
>  
> <https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/02/19/the-wrong-objections-to-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics/>
> 
> The people who object to MWI because of all those unobservable worlds 
> <http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/06/04/does-this-ontological-commitment-make-me-look-fat/>
>  aren’t really objecting to MWI at all; they just don’t like and/or 
> understand quantum mechanics. Hilbert space is big, regardless of one’s 
> personal feelings on the matter.
> 
> So in Sean's presentation, if you object to Many Worlds then you don't 
> like/understand quantum mechanics.


Quantum Mechanics is “many-world” right at the start, (like Mechanism). That is 
why the founders have add the collapse postulate, but that leads all the time 
to non-sense, or to proposal that quantum mechanics is wrong.




> 
> [ But one could start instead with a (quantum) measure space: 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0589 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0589> ]
> 
> When scientists proceed from the mathematics of any theory to an ontology of 
> nature, they are being more of a religious guru than a scientific one.

That is correct. Even a theorem in the theology of the machine, ironically 
perhaps.

But that is valid for a universes, whatever the cardinal a is, from zero to the 
cardinal of Laver …

Now when doing metaphysics seriously, the number of universe and histories 
become a subject of matter, and we can try different theories, but with 
mechanism, it always multiplied the observers, which is annoying or pleasing 
according to our taste, but have no voice in the matter of searching the truth. 

As we cannot observe any “universe”, the consequence of the metaphysical 
cardinal of universes must be indirect, of course. With mechanism, we get 0 
universes, even 0 token, but infinitely many types, and when universal type 
meet universal type, they multiply innumerably. 

Bruno





> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6ed0ec8e-13fe-493a-8d73-490059c3d45e%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6ed0ec8e-13fe-493a-8d73-490059c3d45e%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/E784FDD8-842C-4214-AA06-C39ED9A700BA%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-21 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

QFT is an effective theory that explain neural activity too. Yes, to Penrose's 
microtubules, no, to Tegmark's objection that all quantum processes need to be 
done via sub-zero temps. What the implications for life are using this way of 
thinking, if anything, are, as always open to speculation. 

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Sep 21, 2019 8:32 am
Subject: Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 7:29 AM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> Has Carroll forgotten about effective theories? Even QFT is just an 
> "effective theory". We use classical approximations to quantum mechanics 
> because they work -- not for ideological or philosophical reasons.

Read the book, Carroll devote several chapters to those exact topics.
 John k Clark-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2E%2BUKN%3DTrfUD8-Lt2OmfUM%2BO4g2-Jw047J53HkPFpUdw%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/571935112.10661196.1569087241337%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-21 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

I downloaded Carroll's book a few days ago. Will read it this weekend. Current 
physics research indicates that everything is entangled, which of course is the 
quantum, but the thinking of physicists is that every law emerged from a basic 
soup of entanglement. 

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Sep 21, 2019 7:10 am
Subject: Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:07 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Our decision are classical, so (even in the Everett quantum world) they do 
> not "create new worlds”.
 I suspect Sean Carroll is quoted out of context, as indeed that is a mistake 
(a common one).

If there is one theme running through Sean Carroll's new book it's that nothing 
is classical and everything is  Quantum Mechanical, and the deterministic 
wavefunction of the Multiverse can be thought of as a wavefunction of 
wavefunctions not of worlds because even the concept of a world is just a human 
approximation. He suggests our current difficulties in finding a theory that 
goes beyond General Relativity is that we're trying to find something to stick 
onto it to make it Quantum Mechanical but nature didn't start classical, it was 
Quantum Mechanical from day one, if there was a day one and there may not have 
been.
John K Clark -- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1TaLwSSkLfpGnG6DjMJsX-OYvUvZdiPqGtd4%2BjJgAMrA%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/186554.10636128.1569086576745%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-21 Thread smitra

On 21-09-2019 14:50, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 7:32:43 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 7:29 AM Bruce Kellett
wrote:

_> Has Carroll forgotten about effective theories? Even QFT is
just an "effective theory". We use classical approximations to
quantum mechanics because they work -- not for ideological or
philosophical reasons._

Read the book, Carroll devote several chapters to those exact
topics.

John k Clark

I doubt Sean has any better "approach" that combines QM and GR than
any of the many others.

But if you go on a well-marketed book tour with a well-written book
(and fiction can be well-written) then you gan get the
science-interested public to think that it is the best approach that
exists today.

Combining QM with GR is trivial, there is no problem here. The problem
is with regularizing quantum gravity. A non-renormalizable theory is not
per se wrong, just inconvenient for physicists who want to do
computations with it. If you write down some arbitrary field theory
formulated on a lattice and you consider the effective field theory at
some large length scale, the non-renormalizable terms become very small.
So, the fact that gravity is very weak could well be due to it being
non-renormalizable. This is a point that's sometimes made in books on
renormalization group methods as applied in statistical physics. In that
context non-renormalizable terms are a normal occurrence.

Saibal

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-21 Thread Philip Thrift



On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 7:32:43 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 7:29 AM Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
>
> *> Has Carroll forgotten about effective theories? Even QFT is just an 
>> "effective theory". We use classical approximations to quantum mechanics 
>> because they work -- not for ideological or philosophical reasons.*
>>
>
> Read the book, Carroll devote several chapters to those exact topics.
>
>  John k Clark
>



I doubt Sean has any better "approach" that combines QM and GR than any of 
the many others. 

But if you go on a well-marketed book tour with a well-written book (and 
fiction can be well-written) then you gan get the science-interested public 
to think that it is the best approach that exists today.

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c6f6f659-d9db-4062-a9c4-a72323a82724%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-21 Thread Alan Grayson

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 12:41:41 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is 
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsXCwUsuvKo>
>
> John K Clark
>

I think the enforcers of "right speech" deleted my post which stated that 
the MWI was "hubris on steroids", since it means that any fool can go into 
a lab, do a double slit experiment, and create possibly uncountable worlds 
replete with stars, galaxies and life forms. This idea is probably worse 
than the egregeous overestimate, by 120 orders of magnitude. of the EM 
vacuum energy.  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/a694773e-78d5-4599-8dec-82b4bcaa1f42%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-21 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 7:29 AM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*> Has Carroll forgotten about effective theories? Even QFT is just an
> "effective theory". We use classical approximations to quantum mechanics
> because they work -- not for ideological or philosophical reasons.*
>

Read the book, Carroll devote several chapters to those exact topics.

 John k Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2E%2BUKN%3DTrfUD8-Lt2OmfUM%2BO4g2-Jw047J53HkPFpUdw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-21 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 9:10 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:07 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>
>> *> Our decision are classical, so (even in the Everett quantum world)
>> they do not "create new worlds”. I suspect Sean Carroll is quoted out of
>> context, as indeed that is a mistake (a common one).*
>
>
> If there is one theme running through Sean Carroll's new book it's that
> nothing is classical and everything is  Quantum Mechanical, and the
> deterministic wavefunction of the Multiverse can be thought of as a
> wavefunction of wavefunctions not of worlds because even the concept of a
> world is just a human approximation. He suggests our current difficulties
> in finding a theory that goes beyond General Relativity is that we're
> trying to find something to stick onto it to make it Quantum Mechanical but
> nature didn't start classical, it was Quantum Mechanical from day one, if
> there was a day one and there may not have been.
>


Has Carroll forgotten about effective theories? Even QFT is just an
"effective theory". We use classical approximations to quantum mechanics
because they work -- not for ideological or philosophical reasons.

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/CAFxXSLTzmRFCT--0ShER042tLQm__FzEo6EbLWAOLMwa9MqCbA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-21 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:07 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> *> Our decision are classical, so (even in the Everett quantum world) they
> do not "create new worlds”. I suspect Sean Carroll is quoted out of
> context, as indeed that is a mistake (a common one).*

If there is one theme running through Sean Carroll's new book it's that
nothing is classical and everything is  Quantum Mechanical, and the
deterministic wavefunction of the Multiverse can be thought of as a
wavefunction of wavefunctions not of worlds because even the concept of a
world is just a human approximation. He suggests our current difficulties
in finding a theory that goes beyond General Relativity is that we're
trying to find something to stick onto it to make it Quantum Mechanical but
nature didn't start classical, it was Quantum Mechanical from day one, if
there was a day one and there may not have been.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1TaLwSSkLfpGnG6DjMJsX-OYvUvZdiPqGtd4%2BjJgAMrA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-20 Thread Alan Grayson



On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 6:01:41 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 18 Sep 2019, at 21:15, Alan Grayson > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 3:01:23 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 6:33 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 1:08:16 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 1:02:39 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 4:51 PM Alan Grayson  
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 3:54:46 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:22 AM Alan Grayson  
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *> When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM 
>>>>>>>> and Relativity, people when overboard. Now any patently absurd result 
>>>>>>>> finds 
>>>>>>>> its justification among true believers.*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And in this context "patently absurd" means odd, not logically 
>>>>>>> contradictory not paradoxical not contrary to experimental results, 
>>>>>>> just 
>>>>>>> odd. But as far as we know there is no law that says nature can't 
>>>>>>> behave in 
>>>>>>> ways that humans find odd.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many "odd" results are now mainstream, but MWI is bridge too far, way 
>>>>>> too far IMO. Why don't you just accept that the wf is simply irrelevant 
>>>>>> after the measurement occurs like in the horserace example?. Here, 
>>>>>> there's 
>>>>>> no collapse, no many worlds, no need to explain where the energy comes 
>>>>>> from 
>>>>>> which defines these worlds, and so forth? AG
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that horses and horse races do not interfere (except in 
>>>>> Australia, where several jockeys and trainers have recently been 
>>>>> suspended 
>>>>> for unauthorised interference -- but that is a different matter!)
>>>>>
>>>>> Bruce
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I know. I was just being illustrative. But note that Carroll says much 
>>>> the same thing when he says worlds are created when you make a left or 
>>>> right turn, or flip a coin (or some equivalent analogy). AG 
>>>>
>>>
>>> But suppose you flip a coin and while it's in the air, you write its wf. 
>>> Since the prevailing belief is that all objects are quantum objects, why 
>>> can't one suppose that the two terms in the superposition, head and tail, 
>>> manifest quantum interference? AG 
>>>
>>
>> Why can't one observe a superposition of a live cat and a dead cat? The 
>> problem is decoherence, and coin tosses are totally decohered -- no quantum 
>> superpositions left. So one is reduced to standard classical ignorance 
>> probability .
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> Yes, you're getting to the core of the issue, and there's more here then 
> (than?) meets the eye, at least mine. It seems that quantum superpositions 
> depend on isolation and are destroyed by entanglements,
>
>
> How could ever something destroyed an entanglement? 
>

*I think any entanglement can be destroyed, or undone, by isolating a 
system. AG *

>
> On the contrary, the entailment with an observer will just put the 
> observer in a superposition state himself, and then assuming mechanism, you 
> get the “illusion” of a collapse, without any need of collapse.
>
> Everett “many-worlds” is just the rather natural (for monist at least) 
> idea that a physicist obeys to the laws of physics.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> but exactly why that's the case remains obscure. And these entanglements 
> also connect the micro to the macro. 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c7e0194c-57fd-4eeb-8d17-d37f33936918%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c7e0194c-57fd-4eeb-8d17-d37f33936918%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/257d1ad3-e7d4-4a18-a31e-82a9b7266777%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-20 Thread Philip Thrift

On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 7:39:14 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 6:31:15 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 17 Sep 2019, at 16:04, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>> From a pragmatic perspective, I do not see any Everettian MW (theory, 
>> math, ideas, formulations, interpretations or whatever they want to call 
>> it) in computational quantum mechanics:
>>
>>
>> https://www.simonsfoundation.org/flatiron/center-for-computational-quantum-physics/software
>>
>> If MW were important, it would be there.
>>
>>
>>
>> All computational theory (quantum or not) implies the "Many 
>> Computations”. 
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>

I guess. But I was looking at the actual libraries of computational QM 
programming repositories, and there is a lot of Monte Carlo for example but 
nothing explicitly Many Worlds. 

In Sean Carroll's advocacy of Many Worlds:

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/02/19/the-wrong-objections-to-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics/

The people who object to MWI because of all those unobservable worlds 
<http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/06/04/does-this-ontological-commitment-make-me-look-fat/>
 aren’t *really* objecting to MWI at all; they just don’t like and/or 
understand quantum mechanics. Hilbert space is big, regardless of one’s 
personal feelings on the matter.

So in Sean's presentation, if you object to Many Worlds then you don't 
like/understand quantum mechanics.

[ But one could start instead with a (quantum) measure space: 
https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0589 ]

*When scientists proceed from the mathematics of any theory to an ontology 
of nature, they are being more of a religious guru than a scientific one.*

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6ed0ec8e-13fe-493a-8d73-490059c3d45e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-20 Thread Philip Thrift



On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 6:31:15 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Sep 2019, at 16:04, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
> From a pragmatic perspective, I do not see any Everettian MW (theory, 
> math, ideas, formulations, interpretations or whatever they want to call 
> it) in computational quantum mechanics:
>
>
> https://www.simonsfoundation.org/flatiron/center-for-computational-quantum-physics/software
>
> If MW were important, it would be there.
>
>
>
> All computational theory (quantum or not) implies the "Many Computations”. 
>
> Bruno
>
>

-- 
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/cde4e698-1c19-4ad2-b6cb-c1aa343fdec9%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is



> On 19 Sep 2019, at 07:44, smitra  wrote:
> 
> On 18-09-2019 20:10, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
>> On 9/18/2019 1:33 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>> But suppose you flip a coin and while it's in the air, you write its wf. 
>>> Since the prevailing belief is that all objects are quantum objects, why 
>>> can't one suppose that the two terms in the superposition, head and tail, 
>>> manifest quantum interference? AG
>> One clue that you can't is that magicians teach themselves to flip a
>> coin so that can always catch it the same way it started.  That shows
>> it's not quantum randomness.
>> Brent
> 
> 
> That only shows that in some cases its not random. But when it is random, it 
> can only be due to quantum fluctuations as there is no other form of 
> randomness in nature.

Hmm… The classical division of the amoeba provides an example of first person 
randomness in nature, without the quantum, and indeed the quantum randomness 
becomes such first person randomness in the superposition (weighted by the 
amplitude of the wave, using Born rule (added or derived from Gleason’s 
theorem).

Bruno



> 
> Saibal
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/118ff2da1c0d09f61493d85ccecf0213%40zonnet.nl.

-- 
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/F8C97110-A378-46F3-AEE7-B1E834374EB7%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is


> On 18 Sep 2019, at 21:15, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 3:01:23 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 6:33 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 1:08:16 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 1:02:39 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 4:51 PM Alan Grayson > wrote:
> On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 3:54:46 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:22 AM Alan Grayson > wrote:
> 
> > When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM and Relativity, 
> > people when overboard. Now any patently absurd result finds its 
> > justification among true believers.
> 
> And in this context "patently absurd" means odd, not logically contradictory 
> not paradoxical not contrary to experimental results, just odd. But as far as 
> we know there is no law that says nature can't behave in ways that humans 
> find odd.
> 
> Many "odd" results are now mainstream, but MWI is bridge too far, way too far 
> IMO. Why don't you just accept that the wf is simply irrelevant after the 
> measurement occurs like in the horserace example?. Here, there's no collapse, 
> no many worlds, no need to explain where the energy comes from which defines 
> these worlds, and so forth? AG
> 
> Except that horses and horse races do not interfere (except in Australia, 
> where several jockeys and trainers have recently been suspended for 
> unauthorised interference -- but that is a different matter!)
> 
> Bruce
> 
> I know. I was just being illustrative. But note that Carroll says much the 
> same thing when he says worlds are created when you make a left or right 
> turn, or flip a coin (or some equivalent analogy). AG 
> 
> But suppose you flip a coin and while it's in the air, you write its wf. 
> Since the prevailing belief is that all objects are quantum objects, why 
> can't one suppose that the two terms in the superposition, head and tail, 
> manifest quantum interference? AG 
> 
> Why can't one observe a superposition of a live cat and a dead cat? The 
> problem is decoherence, and coin tosses are totally decohered -- no quantum 
> superpositions left. So one is reduced to standard classical ignorance 
> probability .
> 
> Bruce
> 
> Yes, you're getting to the core of the issue, and there's more here then 
> (than?) meets the eye, at least mine. It seems that quantum superpositions 
> depend on isolation and are destroyed by entanglements,

How could ever something destroyed an entanglement? 

On the contrary, the entailment with an observer will just put the observer in 
a superposition state himself, and then assuming mechanism, you get the 
“illusion” of a collapse, without any need of collapse.

Everett “many-worlds” is just the rather natural (for monist at least) idea 
that a physicist obeys to the laws of physics.

Bruno



> but exactly why that's the case remains obscure. And these entanglements also 
> connect the micro to the macro. 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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c7e0194c-57fd-4eeb-8d17-d37f33936918%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c7e0194c-57fd-4eeb-8d17-d37f33936918%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/31EE604E-3944-4907-B3E6-7F335DB637E2%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is



> On 18 Sep 2019, at 20:10, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/18/2019 1:33 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> But suppose you flip a coin and while it's in the air, you write its wf. 
>> Since the prevailing belief is that all objects are quantum objects, why 
>> can't one suppose that the two terms in the superposition, head and tail, 
>> manifest quantum interference? AG 
> 
> One clue that you can't is that magicians teach themselves to flip a coin so 
> that can always catch it the same way it started.  That shows it's not 
> quantum randomness.

Yes. As I said, you need to shaken the coin a lot to get the tail + head 
superpositions. But there is no need to isolate the coin at all. It will 
decohere, but the observers too, and this leads to the MW or Many histories. 

Bruno 



> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f0e8089f-28fd-fefe-3349-64628d6551de%40verizon.net.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/C8C8E045-99D6-444B-9D6F-3B95C80D1A98%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is


> On 18 Sep 2019, at 12:22, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 11:46:35 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:37 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> > wrote:
> On 9/17/2019 3:49 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 3:01 AM smitra > 
>> wrote:
>> On 17-09-2019 13:32, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> > 
>> > So why do all Everettians have to add so many additional assumptions
>> > in order to pretend to get out the Born rule?
>> > 
>> 
>> Simply assuming the special case of the Born rule that measuring a 
>> system in an eigenstate of an observable will yield the eigenvalue of 
>> that eigenstate with  certainty, is enough.
>> 
>> Where did the concept of an observable as an operator in a Hilbert space, 
>> and the idea that measurements correspond to the action of that observable  
>> on the state, giving a result that is the eigenvalue corresponding to the 
>> projected eigenvector, come from?
> 
> The operator should be expressible in terms of the Hamiltonian of the 
> measuring instrument and its interaction with the system.  But nobody tries 
> to write down the Hamiltonian of the instrument; they just look at what it's 
> supposed to measure classically and then they write an abstract operator that 
> does that.
> 
> So it is something added to the supposed "minimal QM" of the Schrodinger 
> equation. The eigenvector/eigenvalue link is pretty well established. Zurek 
> has a good argument to derive this. 
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
> 
> The Zurek (QD) theory is a very good (in my view) framework to consider. A 
> useful antidote to MWI.
> 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.02092 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.02092>
> 
> Quantum Theory of the Classical: Quantum Jumps, Born's Rule, and Objective 
> Classical Reality via Quantum Darwinism
> 
> Wojciech Hubert Zurek
> (Submitted on 5 Jul 2018)
> 
> Emergence of the classical world from the quantum substrate of our Universe 
> is a long-standing conundrum. I describe three insights into the transition 
> from quantum to classical that are based on the recognition of the role of 
> the environment. I begin with derivation of preferred sets of states that 
> help define what exists - our everyday classical reality. They emerge as a 
> result of breaking of the unitary symmetry of the Hilbert space which happens 
> when the unitarity of quantum evolutions encounters nonlinearities inherent 
> in the process of amplification - of replicating information. This derivation 
> is accomplished without the usual tools of decoherence, and accounts for the 
> appearance of quantum jumps and emergence of preferred pointer states 
> consistent with those obtained via environment-induced superselection, or 
> einselection. Pointer states obtained this way determine what can happen - 
> define events - without appealing to Born's rule for probabilities. 
> Therefore, Born's rule can be now deduced from the entanglement-assisted 
> invariance, or envariance - a symmetry of entangled quantum states. With 
> probabilities at hand one also gains new insights into foundations of quantum 
> statistical physics. Moreover, one can now analyze information flows 
> responsible for decoherence. These information flows explain how perception 
> of objective classical reality arises from the quantum substrate: Effective 
> amplification they represent accounts for the objective existence of the 
> einselected states of macroscopic quantum systems through the redundancy of 
> pointer state records in their environment - through quantum Darwinism.

That is meaningful …. only in the MW.

Bruno



> 
> 
> 
> @philipthrift 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ee4aa20d-b9bd-407b-b985-3ab107e0f7b2%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ee4aa20d-b9bd-407b-b985-3ab107e0f7b2%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4B2ED6EF-99BD-44B0-9805-D8038A4FD49E%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is


> On 18 Sep 2019, at 00:45, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 2:52 AM smitra  <mailto:smi...@zonnet.nl>> wrote:
> On 17-09-2019 09:16, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:08 PM Alan Grayson  > <mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > I know. I was just being illustrative. But note that Carroll says much
> > the same thing when he says worlds are created when you make a left or
> > right turn, or flip a coin (or some equivalent analogy). AG
> > 
> > And that is where Sean slips inevitably into woo-woo.
> > 
> No, this is a rather solid result from assuming the validity of the 
> Schrodinger equation:
> 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953>
> 
> "We argue using simple models that all successful practical uses of 
> probabilities originate in quantum fluctuations in the microscopic 
> physical world around us, often propagated to macroscopic scales. Thus 
> we claim there is no physically verified fully classical theory of 
> probability. We comment on the general implications of this view, and 
> specifically question the application of classical probability theory to 
> cosmology in cases where key questions are known to have no quantum 
> answer. We argue that the ideas developed here may offer a way out of 
> the notorious measure problems of eternal inflation."
> 
> They can argue this, but that falls far short of a demonstration that new 
> branches split off for every decision we make.

I agree with you. Decision are very plausibly classical. Actually, even more so 
if the brain was a quantum computer, as we would use quantum effect to enhance 
the classical probabilities of getting what we search. 



> In general, decisions are not choices from a set of possibilities in 
> superposition, which would be the only way in which the proposal could make 
> any sense.

OK.

Bruno

> 
> 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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTV_dThaUzX6W-QejFSA%3DPLtHyL-WvMj25F64yPUiJLRA%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTV_dThaUzX6W-QejFSA%3DPLtHyL-WvMj25F64yPUiJLRA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/009B8A3B-7A7E-4E7C-8520-594E4E93BE69%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is


> On 17 Sep 2019, at 20:05, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 4:43:37 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 2:51 AM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
> 
> > Why don't you just accept that the wf is simply irrelevant after the 
> > measurement occurs
> 
> Because you can't explain exactly what is and what is not a "measurement". 
> And because tacking on complicated mathematical wheels within wheels to make 
> the wave function suddenly vanish would not improve the theories ability to 
> make observable predictions by one bit and would do absolutely nothing except 
> muzzle the Schrödinger Equation which is virtually shouting at us about the 
> nature of reality. The Many Worlds theory didn't tack on all those many 
> worlds, if you take a bare bones approach to quantum mechanics and add 
> nothing not needed to explain observation those worlds come naturally, they 
> can't be avoided.
> 
>  John K Clark
> 
> To be perfectly candid here, there's a disconnect that borders on insanity. 
> Some worthless asshole can go into a lab, do a double slit experiment, and 
> conjure possibly uncountable universes into existence, replete with possibly 
> many infinite stars, galaxies, and life forms. Can't you see how ridiculous 
> this is, hubris on steroids,

That is the argument of incredulity. But is it so ridiculous? The very starting 
motto of this list was that “all things” is simpler than one thing, or a finite 
number of things. There are many people, many planets, many solar (star) 
systems, many galaxies, … so why not many physical universes/histories?



> and by simply assuming the wf is irrelevant after the measurement occurs, 
> makes it all go away? AG 

This makes sense for all practical purposes, but we can’t dispose so easily 
from what the theory tells us when we search to understand instead of merely 
applying tools.

Bruno



> 
> -- 
> 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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0a946a13-9db2-4d29-8fa4-0cb19ad5f6ff%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0a946a13-9db2-4d29-8fa4-0cb19ad5f6ff%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ED0A60DE-245C-463C-8CDD-20A1BE9C1AB2%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is


> On 17 Sep 2019, at 16:04, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 8:20:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 16 Sep 2019, at 10:49, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:41:41 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>> Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is 
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsXCwUsuvKo>
>> 
>> John K Clark
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a failure 
>> of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From a pragmatic perspective, I do not see any Everettian MW (theory, math, 
> ideas, formulations, interpretations or whatever they want to call it) in 
> computational quantum mechanics:
> 
> https://www.simonsfoundation.org/flatiron/center-for-computational-quantum-physics/software
>  
> <https://www.simonsfoundation.org/flatiron/center-for-computational-quantum-physics/software>
> 
> If MW were important, it would be there.


All computational theory (quantum or not) implies the "Many Computations”. 

Bruno



> 
> @philipthrift
> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/233a6a14-fb59-4103-9829-5b2b9c5d0f47%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/233a6a14-fb59-4103-9829-5b2b9c5d0f47%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8574246A-70AF-4913-96D5-F42879553F97%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is


> On 17 Sep 2019, at 13:32, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 8:43 PM John Clark  <mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 2:51 AM Alan Grayson  <mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> > Why don't you just accept that the wf is simply irrelevant after the 
> > measurement occurs
> 
> Because you can't explain exactly what is and what is not a "measurement". 
> And because tacking on complicated mathematical wheels within wheels to make 
> the wave function suddenly vanish would not improve the theories ability to 
> make observable predictions by one bit and would do absolutely nothing except 
> muzzle the Schrödinger Equation which is virtually shouting at us about the 
> nature of reality. The Many Worlds theory didn't tack on all those many 
> worlds, if you take a bare bones approach to quantum mechanics and add 
> nothing not needed to explain observation those worlds come naturally, they 
> can't be avoided.
> 
> So why do all Everettians have to add so many additional assumptions in order 
> to pretend to get out the Born rule?

Which one precisely? Gleason theorem is enough, and it requires only that the 
Hilbert space is not too much low dimensional (>= 3).

Then, with Mechanism, the “many” is as natural than “many numbers” or “many 
computations”. “Many” is conceptually simpler that any particular non trivial 
thing, usually.

And then, the collapse needed to avoid the MWI (or the many histories) 
reintroduce dualism, and asks for a non mechanist theory of mind, which nobody 
has found yet, except for the usual fairy tales.

Bruno



> 
> 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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQ%3DxXCvOrY_cBiXeo3otcuHVNd6H83ZDSnkDsL5-C7gLA%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQ%3DxXCvOrY_cBiXeo3otcuHVNd6H83ZDSnkDsL5-C7gLA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5F3ECD1D-E2C9-46B2-9F0C-389E0CD656EA%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-20 Thread Philip Thrift



On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 5:38:02 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 12:27:59 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/18/2019 10:44 PM, smitra wrote:
>>
>> On 18-09-2019 20:10, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: 
>>
>> On 9/18/2019 1:33 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>>
>> But suppose you flip a coin and while it's in the air, you write its wf. 
>> Since the prevailing belief is that all objects are quantum objects, why 
>> can't one suppose that the two terms in the superposition, head and tail, 
>> manifest quantum interference? AG 
>>
>>
>> One clue that you can't is that magicians teach themselves to flip a 
>> coin so that can always catch it the same way it started.  That shows 
>> it's not quantum randomness. 
>>
>> Brent 
>>
>>
>>
>> That only shows that in some cases its not random. But when it is random, 
>> it can only be due to quantum fluctuations as there is no other form of 
>> randomness in nature. 
>>
>>
>> There's no other source of *inherent* randomness.  There's plenty of 
>> randomness from ignorance and there's randomness from the past light cone.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Event horizons may play a randomizing role. Quantum gravitation is likely 
> a nonlocal field theory, whereas other gauge fields are localized as 
> oscillators on spatial surfaces. Of course this is probably a manifestation 
> of how spacetime is emergent from large Qu-Nit entanglements.
>
> LC 
>

That 

   Quantum gravitation is likely a nonlocal field theory

shows how physics has become like a religion (as Feyerabend criticized).

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/607d45c6-b486-4d40-ae9c-829a1410570e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-20 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 12:27:59 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/18/2019 10:44 PM, smitra wrote:
>
> On 18-09-2019 20:10, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: 
>
> On 9/18/2019 1:33 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: 
>
> But suppose you flip a coin and while it's in the air, you write its wf. 
> Since the prevailing belief is that all objects are quantum objects, why 
> can't one suppose that the two terms in the superposition, head and tail, 
> manifest quantum interference? AG 
>
>
> One clue that you can't is that magicians teach themselves to flip a 
> coin so that can always catch it the same way it started.  That shows 
> it's not quantum randomness. 
>
> Brent 
>
>
>
> That only shows that in some cases its not random. But when it is random, 
> it can only be due to quantum fluctuations as there is no other form of 
> randomness in nature. 
>
>
> There's no other source of *inherent* randomness.  There's plenty of 
> randomness from ignorance and there's randomness from the past light cone.
>
> Brent
>

Event horizons may play a randomizing role. Quantum gravitation is likely a 
nonlocal field theory, whereas other gauge fields are localized as 
oscillators on spatial surfaces. Of course this is probably a manifestation 
of how spacetime is emergent from large Qu-Nit entanglements.

LC 

-- 
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/64d97ef5-6b7c-4640-846b-0b90de25d787%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-19 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 9/18/2019 10:44 PM, smitra wrote:

On 18-09-2019 20:10, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:

On 9/18/2019 1:33 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
But suppose you flip a coin and while it's in the air, you write its 
wf. Since the prevailing belief is that all objects are quantum 
objects, why can't one suppose that the two terms in the 
superposition, head and tail, manifest quantum interference? AG


One clue that you can't is that magicians teach themselves to flip a
coin so that can always catch it the same way it started.  That shows
it's not quantum randomness.

Brent



That only shows that in some cases its not random. But when it is 
random, it can only be due to quantum fluctuations as there is no 
other form of randomness in nature.


There's no other source of /inherent/ randomness.  There's plenty of 
randomness from ignorance and there's randomness from the past light cone.


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/23a24c30-7462-e74f-d49e-9b0ead50d607%40verizon.net.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-19 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 17 Sep 2019, at 09:16, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:08 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 1:02:39 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 4:51 PM Alan Grayson > wrote:
> On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 3:54:46 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:22 AM Alan Grayson > wrote:
> 
> > When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM and Relativity, 
> > people when overboard. Now any patently absurd result finds its 
> > justification among true believers.
> 
> And in this context "patently absurd" means odd, not logically contradictory 
> not paradoxical not contrary to experimental results, just odd. But as far as 
> we know there is no law that says nature can't behave in ways that humans 
> find odd.
> 
> Many "odd" results are now mainstream, but MWI is bridge too far, way too far 
> IMO. Why don't you just accept that the wf is simply irrelevant after the 
> measurement occurs like in the horserace example?. Here, there's no collapse, 
> no many worlds, no need to explain where the energy comes from which defines 
> these worlds, and so forth? AG
> 
> Except that horses and horse races do not interfere (except in Australia, 
> where several jockeys and trainers have recently been suspended for 
> unauthorised interference -- but that is a different matter!)
> 
> Bruce
> 
> I know. I was just being illustrative. But note that Carroll says much the 
> same thing when he says worlds are created when you make a left or right 
> turn, or flip a coin (or some equivalent analogy). AG 
> 
> And that is where Sean slips inevitably into woo-woo.

Not if you shake the coin long enough. The Heisenberg uncertainties can add up, 
and eventually you can the two (times aleph_1) histories/worlds.

But if you flip the coin without shaking much, that will not lead to any 
superposition.

You don’t need to isolate the coin, note. (Just to prevent a common mistake 
here too).

Bruno




> 
> 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/CAFxXSLRWEhcgisyY22wfpefvxs4P%2BQQzUyks81EgVYTK%2BQy18w%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/921B1F68-BC4B-4BAE-B9FB-C151E93C7BF1%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-19 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 17 Sep 2019, at 04:22, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 12:19 PM spudboy100 via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
> Agnostic, Mind-Brain thing is good with me. According to a brief article, 
> some theorists have mused about consciousness in the absence of matter. Check 
> it out. It will either be a good laugh for you, but once in a while, the 
> 'lofty' stuff works for me. 
> 
> As soon as the article mentioned Deepak Chopra I knew that we were deep into 
> woo-woo territory….

I agree.

Yet, to identify mind and brain is still a sort of Woo-Woo act, needing some 
ontological substance, and making Mechanism false (and thus Darwin, Molecular 
biology, etc, unless you add non Turing emulable things there, just to save an 
ontological substance, which is a bit of wishful thinking). 

But consciousness, like numbers are not made of quark, and biology favours 
strongly mechanism on non-mechanism. Driesch defended the élan vital due to 
Descartes inability to solve the reproduction of machine problem, but this has 
been solved technically by Molecular Biology, and conceptually by Kleene’s 
second recursion theorem. No matter or substance involved there.

Bruno


> 
> Bruce
>  
> From: Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>>
> 
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:39 AM spudboy100 via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
> It would be (will be?) interesting when we achieve this. Serious, academic 
> bench computer scientists are actively working on variations of machine 
> intelligence to make this happen, money to be made. Are you stating that 
> making a hyper-smart machine is impossible?
> 
> No, I am agnostic about the possibility. Certainly I am not a Cartesian 
> dualist -- mind-brain identity is the thing.
> 
> Bruce
>  
> Are you a spiritualist? A Cartesian dualist imputing a magic substance? :-) 
> 
> 
> From: Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 6:44 AM spudboy100 via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
>  
> So, if we develop AI to come up with new, better, equations, this would be 
> good with you, because, non-human? 
> Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with any 
> humanly devised equation."
> 
> Bruce
> 
> Go for it, man! First develop your super-intelligent AI.. And then 
> see if the world conforms to its predictions..
> 
> 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/CAFxXSLSR8NfcwfJ%2B%2BGxVWvg76%3Dy1%3DLq4pSkU_wn9CtD3XcV59A%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/5FA2F203-D605-4A24-88DB-1FE95AE5FC6D%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-19 Thread Bruno Marchal

Our decision are classical, so (even in the Everett quantum world) they do not 
"create new worlds”. 
I suspect Sean Carroll is quoted out of context, as indeed that is a mistake (a 
common one).

Bruno



> On 16 Sep 2019, at 15:28, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 7:11:30 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:58 PM John Clark > 
> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:49 AM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
> 
> > "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a 
> > failure of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both.
> 
> And I think the above demonstrates a lack of courage to face the possibility 
> that reality may be structured in ways you do not like. As Carl Sagan said  
> "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition".
>  
> Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with any 
> humanly devised equation."
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=11277 
> 
> 
> An Apology
> 
> Posted on September 15, 2019 
>  by woit 
> 
> I’m afraid I made a serious mistake in this previous posting discussing Sean 
> Carroll’s new book . 
> Since the book was relatively reasonable, while the jacket and promotional 
> material that came with it were nonsense, I assumed that Carroll was just 
> being ill-served by his publisher. It’s now clear I was very wrong. He’s on a 
> book tour, and the nonsense is exactly what he is putting front and center as 
> a revelation to the public about how to understand quantum mechanics. For a 
> couple examples, here’s what was on the PBS News Hour 
> 
> The “many worlds” theory in quantum mechanics suggests that with every 
> decision you make, a new universe springs into existence containing what 
> amounts to a new version of you. Bestselling author and theoretical physicist 
> Sean Carroll discusses the concept and his new book, “Something Deeply 
> Hidden,” with NewsHour Weekend’s Tom Casciato.
> 
> and here’s something from his talk down the street from me 
> .
> 
> Using your public platform to tell people that the way to understand quantum 
> mechanics is that the world splits depending on what you decide to do is 
> simply What the Bleep?  
> level stupidity. Those in the physics and science communication communities 
> who care about the public understanding of quantum mechanics should think 
> hard about what they can do to deal with this situation. They may however 
> come to the same conclusion I’ve just reached: best to ignore him, which I’ll 
> try to do from now on.
> 
> @philipthrift 
>  
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dc4c393e-7f4c-4146-979a-7e5874f3b4e0%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/5AB7663F-C12B-4EAC-A333-EC39BFD11AED%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-18 Thread smitra


On 18-09-2019 20:10, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:

On 9/18/2019 1:33 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
But suppose you flip a coin and while it's in the air, you write its 
wf. Since the prevailing belief is that all objects are quantum 
objects, why can't one suppose that the two terms in the 
superposition, head and tail, manifest quantum interference? AG


One clue that you can't is that magicians teach themselves to flip a
coin so that can always catch it the same way it started.  That shows
it's not quantum randomness.

Brent



That only shows that in some cases its not random. But when it is 
random, it can only be due to quantum fluctuations as there is no other 
form of randomness in nature.


Saibal

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/118ff2da1c0d09f61493d85ccecf0213%40zonnet.nl.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-18 Thread Alan Grayson



On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 3:01:23 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 6:33 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 1:08:16 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 1:02:39 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 4:51 PM Alan Grayson  
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 3:54:46 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:22 AM Alan Grayson  
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *> When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM 
>>>>>>> and Relativity, people when overboard. Now any patently absurd result 
>>>>>>> finds 
>>>>>>> its justification among true believers.*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And in this context "patently absurd" means odd, not logically 
>>>>>> contradictory not paradoxical not contrary to experimental results, just 
>>>>>> odd. But as far as we know there is no law that says nature can't behave 
>>>>>> in 
>>>>>> ways that humans find odd.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Many "odd" results are now mainstream, but MWI is bridge too far, way 
>>>>> too far IMO. Why don't you just accept that the wf is simply irrelevant 
>>>>> after the measurement occurs like in the horserace example?. Here, 
>>>>> there's 
>>>>> no collapse, no many worlds, no need to explain where the energy comes 
>>>>> from 
>>>>> which defines these worlds, and so forth? AG
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except that horses and horse races do not interfere (except in 
>>>> Australia, where several jockeys and trainers have recently been suspended 
>>>> for unauthorised interference -- but that is a different matter!)
>>>>
>>>> Bruce
>>>>
>>>
>>> I know. I was just being illustrative. But note that Carroll says much 
>>> the same thing when he says worlds are created when you make a left or 
>>> right turn, or flip a coin (or some equivalent analogy). AG 
>>>
>>
>> But suppose you flip a coin and while it's in the air, you write its wf. 
>> Since the prevailing belief is that all objects are quantum objects, why 
>> can't one suppose that the two terms in the superposition, head and tail, 
>> manifest quantum interference? AG 
>>
>
> Why can't one observe a superposition of a live cat and a dead cat? The 
> problem is decoherence, and coin tosses are totally decohered -- no quantum 
> superpositions left. So one is reduced to standard classical ignorance 
> probability .
>
> Bruce
>

Yes, you're getting to the core of the issue, and there's more here then 
(than?) meets the eye, at least mine. It seems that quantum superpositions 
depend on isolation and are destroyed by entanglements, but exactly why 
that's the case remains obscure. And these entanglements also connect the 
micro to the macro. 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/c7e0194c-57fd-4eeb-8d17-d37f33936918%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-18 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List





On 9/18/2019 1:33 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
But suppose you flip a coin and while it's in the air, you write its 
wf. Since the prevailing belief is that all objects are quantum 
objects, why can't one suppose that the two terms in the 
superposition, head and tail, manifest quantum interference? AG 


One clue that you can't is that magicians teach themselves to flip a 
coin so that can always catch it the same way it started.  That shows 
it's not quantum randomness.


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/f0e8089f-28fd-fefe-3349-64628d6551de%40verizon.net.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-18 Thread Philip Thrift

On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 11:46:35 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:37 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> On 9/17/2019 3:49 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 3:01 AM smitra > 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17-09-2019 13:32, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > So why do all Everettians have to add so many additional assumptions
>>> > in order to pretend to get out the Born rule?
>>> > 
>>>
>>> Simply assuming the special case of the Born rule that measuring a 
>>> system in an eigenstate of an observable will yield the eigenvalue of 
>>> that eigenstate with  certainty, is enough.
>>
>>
>> Where did the concept of an observable as an operator in a Hilbert space, 
>> and the idea that measurements correspond to the action of that observable 
>>  on the state, giving a result that is the eigenvalue corresponding to the 
>> projected eigenvector, come from?
>>
>>
>> The operator should be expressible in terms of the Hamiltonian of the 
>> measuring instrument and its interaction with the system.  But nobody tries 
>> to write down the Hamiltonian of the instrument; they just look at what 
>> it's supposed to measure classically and then they write an abstract 
>> operator that does that.
>>
>
> So it is something added to the supposed "minimal QM" of the Schrodinger 
> equation. The eigenvector/eigenvalue link is pretty well established. Zurek 
> has a good argument to derive this. 
>
> Bruce
>

The Zurek (QD) theory is a very good (in my view) framework to consider. A 
useful antidote to MWI.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.02092

*Quantum Theory of the Classical: Quantum Jumps, Born's Rule, and Objective 
Classical Reality via Quantum Darwinism*

Wojciech Hubert Zurek
(Submitted on 5 Jul 2018)

Emergence of the classical world from the quantum substrate of our Universe 
is a long-standing conundrum. I describe three insights into the transition 
from quantum to classical that are based on the recognition of the role of 
the environment. I begin with derivation of preferred sets of states that 
help define what exists - our everyday classical reality. They emerge as a 
result of breaking of the unitary symmetry of the Hilbert space which 
happens when the unitarity of quantum evolutions encounters nonlinearities 
inherent in the process of amplification - of replicating information. This 
derivation is accomplished without the usual tools of decoherence, and 
accounts for the appearance of quantum jumps and emergence of preferred 
pointer states consistent with those obtained via environment-induced 
superselection, or einselection. Pointer states obtained this way determine 
what can happen - define events - without appealing to Born's rule for 
probabilities. Therefore, Born's rule can be now deduced from the 
entanglement-assisted invariance, or envariance - a symmetry of entangled 
quantum states. With probabilities at hand one also gains new insights into 
foundations of quantum statistical physics. Moreover, one can now analyze 
information flows responsible for decoherence. These information flows 
explain how perception of objective classical reality arises from the 
quantum substrate: Effective amplification they represent accounts for the 
objective existence of the einselected states of macroscopic quantum 
systems through the redundancy of pointer state records in their 
environment - through quantum Darwinism.

@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ee4aa20d-b9bd-407b-b985-3ab107e0f7b2%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-18 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 6:33 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 1:08:16 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 1:02:39 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 4:51 PM Alan Grayson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 3:54:46 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:22 AM Alan Grayson 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> *> When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM
>>>>>> and Relativity, people when overboard. Now any patently absurd result 
>>>>>> finds
>>>>>> its justification among true believers.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And in this context "patently absurd" means odd, not logically
>>>>> contradictory not paradoxical not contrary to experimental results, just
>>>>> odd. But as far as we know there is no law that says nature can't behave 
>>>>> in
>>>>> ways that humans find odd.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Many "odd" results are now mainstream, but MWI is bridge too far, way
>>>> too far IMO. Why don't you just accept that the wf is simply irrelevant
>>>> after the measurement occurs like in the horserace example?. Here, there's
>>>> no collapse, no many worlds, no need to explain where the energy comes from
>>>> which defines these worlds, and so forth? AG
>>>>
>>>
>>> Except that horses and horse races do not interfere (except in
>>> Australia, where several jockeys and trainers have recently been suspended
>>> for unauthorised interference -- but that is a different matter!)
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> I know. I was just being illustrative. But note that Carroll says much
>> the same thing when he says worlds are created when you make a left or
>> right turn, or flip a coin (or some equivalent analogy). AG
>>
>
> But suppose you flip a coin and while it's in the air, you write its wf.
> Since the prevailing belief is that all objects are quantum objects, why
> can't one suppose that the two terms in the superposition, head and tail,
> manifest quantum interference? AG
>

Why can't one observe a superposition of a live cat and a dead cat? The
problem is decoherence, and coin tosses are totally decohered -- no quantum
superpositions left. So one is reduced to standard classical ignorance
probability .

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/CAFxXSLTRmzb0sbF6G5%2ByBiX8uv_HTErDgQOdS2OZUJx5occykA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-18 Thread Alan Grayson



On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 1:08:16 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 1:02:39 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 4:51 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 3:54:46 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:22 AM Alan Grayson  
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> *> When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM 
>>>>> and Relativity, people when overboard. Now any patently absurd result 
>>>>> finds 
>>>>> its justification among true believers.*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And in this context "patently absurd" means odd, not logically 
>>>> contradictory not paradoxical not contrary to experimental results, just 
>>>> odd. But as far as we know there is no law that says nature can't behave 
>>>> in 
>>>> ways that humans find odd.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Many "odd" results are now mainstream, but MWI is bridge too far, way 
>>> too far IMO. Why don't you just accept that the wf is simply irrelevant 
>>> after the measurement occurs like in the horserace example?. Here, there's 
>>> no collapse, no many worlds, no need to explain where the energy comes from 
>>> which defines these worlds, and so forth? AG
>>>
>>
>> Except that horses and horse races do not interfere (except in Australia, 
>> where several jockeys and trainers have recently been suspended for 
>> unauthorised interference -- but that is a different matter!)
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> I know. I was just being illustrative. But note that Carroll says much the 
> same thing when he says worlds are created when you make a left or right 
> turn, or flip a coin (or some equivalent analogy). AG 
>

But suppose you flip a coin and while it's in the air, you write its wf. 
Since the prevailing belief is that all objects are quantum objects, why 
can't one suppose that the two terms in the superposition, head and tail, 
manifest quantum interference? 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/4ed7b5a3-6ab4-48cc-a904-98f56c5cae16%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:37 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On 9/17/2019 3:49 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 3:01 AM smitra  wrote:
>
>> On 17-09-2019 13:32, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> >
>> > So why do all Everettians have to add so many additional assumptions
>> > in order to pretend to get out the Born rule?
>> >
>>
>> Simply assuming the special case of the Born rule that measuring a
>> system in an eigenstate of an observable will yield the eigenvalue of
>> that eigenstate with  certainty, is enough.
>
>
> Where did the concept of an observable as an operator in a Hilbert space,
> and the idea that measurements correspond to the action of that observable
>  on the state, giving a result that is the eigenvalue corresponding to the
> projected eigenvector, come from?
>
>
> The operator should be expressible in terms of the Hamiltonian of the
> measuring instrument and its interaction with the system.  But nobody tries
> to write down the Hamiltonian of the instrument; they just look at what
> it's supposed to measure classically and then they write an abstract
> operator that does that.
>

So it is something added to the supposed "minimal QM" of the Schrodinger
equation. The eigenvector/eigenvalue link is pretty well established. Zurek
has a good argument to derive 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/CAFxXSLS%2B6YpHrU1H1GtsQkfx_ceHYa9d8H%2BREABksar4pKNE1w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-17 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 9/17/2019 3:49 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 3:01 AM smitra <mailto:smi...@zonnet.nl>> wrote:

On 17-09-2019 13:32, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> So why do all Everettians have to add so many additional assumptions
> in order to pretend to get out the Born rule?
>

Simply assuming the special case of the Born rule that measuring a
system in an eigenstate of an observable will yield the eigenvalue of
that eigenstate with  certainty, is enough.

Where did the concept of an observable as an operator in a Hilbert 
space, and the idea that measurements correspond to the action of that 
observable  on the state, giving a result that is the eigenvalue 
corresponding to the projected eigenvector, come from?

The operator should be expressible in terms of the Hamiltonian of the 
measuring instrument and its interaction with the system.  But nobody 
tries to write down the Hamiltonian of the instrument; they just look at 
what it's supposed to measure classically and then they write an 
abstract operator that does that.

Brent

As I said, you have to build an awful lot into the Schrodinger 
equation in order to get out quantum physics. The Born rule is one of 
the hardest things to get. And no one has yet produced a convincing 
argument that the Born rule can be derived in Everettian QM.

Bruce

You can consider the case of
repeatedly preparing and measuring N copies of a system and then
consider the observable that corresponds to the frequency
distribution
of the individual measurement outcomes in the limit of N to infinity.
The special case of the Born rule applied to observable for the
frequency distribution then implies the general Born rule.

Saibal

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTDkPX9u6j5cWV_coDm%2BackwBGD5_7CTYvVCvJa4upPUQ%40mail.gmail.com 
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTDkPX9u6j5cWV_coDm%2BackwBGD5_7CTYvVCvJa4upPUQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6e7e9d97-0696-8555-c5a2-12ed87434af3%40verizon.net.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 3:01 AM smitra  wrote:

> On 17-09-2019 13:32, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >
> > So why do all Everettians have to add so many additional assumptions
> > in order to pretend to get out the Born rule?
> >
>
> Simply assuming the special case of the Born rule that measuring a
> system in an eigenstate of an observable will yield the eigenvalue of
> that eigenstate with  certainty, is enough.

Where did the concept of an observable as an operator in a Hilbert space,
and the idea that measurements correspond to the action of that observable
 on the state, giving a result that is the eigenvalue corresponding to the
projected eigenvector, come from?

As I said, you have to build an awful lot into the Schrodinger equation in
order to get out quantum physics. The Born rule is one of the hardest
things to get. And no one has yet produced a convincing argument that the
Born rule can be derived in Everettian QM.

Bruce

You can consider the case of
> repeatedly preparing and measuring N copies of a system and then
> consider the observable that corresponds to the frequency distribution
> of the individual measurement outcomes in the limit of N to infinity.
> The special case of the Born rule applied to observable for the
> frequency distribution then implies the general Born rule.
>
> Saibal
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTDkPX9u6j5cWV_coDm%2BackwBGD5_7CTYvVCvJa4upPUQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 2:52 AM smitra  wrote:

> On 17-09-2019 09:16, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:08 PM Alan Grayson 
> > wrote:
> >
> > I know. I was just being illustrative. But note that Carroll says much
> > the same thing when he says worlds are created when you make a left or
> > right turn, or flip a coin (or some equivalent analogy). AG
> >
> > And that is where Sean slips inevitably into woo-woo.
> >
> No, this is a rather solid result from assuming the validity of the
> Schrodinger equation:
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953
>
> "We argue using simple models that all successful practical uses of
> probabilities originate in quantum fluctuations in the microscopic
> physical world around us, often propagated to macroscopic scales. Thus
> we claim there is no physically verified fully classical theory of
> probability. We comment on the general implications of this view, and
> specifically question the application of classical probability theory to
> cosmology in cases where key questions are known to have no quantum
> answer. We argue that the ideas developed here may offer a way out of
> the notorious measure problems of eternal inflation."
>

They can argue this, but that falls far short of a demonstration that new
branches split off for every decision we make. In general, decisions are
not choices from a set of possibilities in superposition, which would be
the only way in which the proposal could make any sense.

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/CAFxXSLTV_dThaUzX6W-QejFSA%3DPLtHyL-WvMj25F64yPUiJLRA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-17 Thread Philip Thrift



On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 12:13:02 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
>
> On 17-09-2019 16:04, Philip Thrift wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 8:20:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal 
> > wrote: 
> > 
> >> On 16 Sep 2019, at 10:49, Philip Thrift  wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:41:41 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: 
> >> 
> >> Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is [1] 
> >> 
> >> John K Clark 
> >> 
> >> "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a 
> >> failure of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both. 
> > 
> > Why? 
> > 
> > Bruno 
> > 
> > From a pragmatic perspective, I do not see any Everettian MW (theory, 
> > math, ideas, formulations, interpretations or whatever they want to 
> > call it) in computational quantum mechanics: 
> > 
> > 
> https://www.simonsfoundation.org/flatiron/center-for-computational-quantum-physics/software
>  
> > 
> > If MW were important, it would be there. 
> > 
> > @philipthrift 
>
> The fact that computational quantum mechanics works at all is very 
> strong evidence for the MWI. That the MWI in the sense of the idea that 
> you have copies out there that have experienced different things, has no 
> practical applications is similar to saying that the idea that you are 
> ultimately reducible to only chemistry has no practical applications. 
> The question whether or not biology is merely a branch of chemistry has 
> been answered and this has some applications, but at the level of human 
> beings in the way they interact with each other, this is just an 
> academic question. The same is pretty much true for quantum mechanics 
> and the MWI, or at least the "Many Words" part of the MWI, as the some 
> details if the MWI still need to be fleshed out. 
>
> Thing is that if the MWI is wrong then that implies new physics in an 
> area that no one is expecting. Physicists are expecting new physics to 
> appear at high energies, e.g. supersymmetry may be discovered. But no 
> one expects that quantum mechanics will fail to hold up. What's 
> unexpected may still happen, but it's just not plausible given 
> everything we do know. 
>
> Saibal 
>
>

That there is a a different kind of "probability "space" underlying QM does 
not imply MWI. 

In fact. MWI is a probability ("extended" or not) eliminative theory (or 
framework, or interpretation, or formulation, or whatever word physicists 
are happy with).

@philipthrift


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3693709d-2981-4a70-91b2-9e5f9ebf80db%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-17 Thread Alan Grayson



On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 4:43:37 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 2:51 AM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
> > *Why don't you just accept that the wf is simply irrelevant after the 
>> measurement occurs*
>>
>
> Because you can't explain exactly what is and what is not a "measurement". 
> And because tacking on complicated mathematical wheels within wheels to 
> make the wave function suddenly vanish would not improve the theories 
> ability to make observable predictions by one bit and would do absolutely 
> nothing except muzzle the Schrödinger Equation which is virtually shouting 
> at us about the nature of reality. The Many Worlds theory didn't tack on 
> all those many worlds, if you take a bare bones approach to quantum 
> mechanics and add nothing not needed to explain observation those worlds 
> come naturally, they can't be avoided.
>
>  John K Clark
>

To be perfectly candid here, there's a disconnect that borders on insanity. 
Some worthless asshole can go into a lab, do a double slit experiment, and 
conjure possibly uncountable universes into existence, replete with 
possibly many infinite stars, galaxies, and life forms. Can't you see how 
ridiculous this is, hubris on steroids, and by simply assuming the wf is 
irrelevant after the measurement occurs, makes it all go away? 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/0a946a13-9db2-4d29-8fa4-0cb19ad5f6ff%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-17 Thread smitra

On 17-09-2019 16:04, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 8:20:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
wrote:

On 16 Sep 2019, at 10:49, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:41:41 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is [1]

John K Clark

"Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a
failure of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both.

Why?

Bruno

From a pragmatic perspective, I do not see any Everettian MW (theory,
math, ideas, formulations, interpretations or whatever they want to
call it) in computational quantum mechanics:

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/flatiron/center-for-computational-quantum-physics/software

If MW were important, it would be there.

@philipthrift

The fact that computational quantum mechanics works at all is very
strong evidence for the MWI. That the MWI in the sense of the idea that
you have copies out there that have experienced different things, has no
practical applications is similar to saying that the idea that you are
ultimately reducible to only chemistry has no practical applications.
The question whether or not biology is merely a branch of chemistry has
been answered and this has some applications, but at the level of human
beings in the way they interact with each other, this is just an
academic question. The same is pretty much true for quantum mechanics
and the MWI, or at least the "Many Words" part of the MWI, as the some
details if the MWI still need to be fleshed out.

Thing is that if the MWI is wrong then that implies new physics in an
area that no one is expecting. Physicists are expecting new physics to
appear at high energies, e.g. supersymmetry may be discovered. But no
one expects that quantum mechanics will fail to hold up. What's
unexpected may still happen, but it's just not plausible given
everything we do know.

Saibal

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-17 Thread smitra


On 17-09-2019 13:32, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 8:43 PM John Clark 
wrote:


On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 2:51 AM Alan Grayson
 wrote:


_Why don't you just accept that the wf is simply irrelevant

after the measurement occurs_


Because you can't explain exactly what is and what is not a
"measurement". And because tacking on complicated mathematical
wheels within wheels to make the wave function suddenly vanish would
not improve the theories ability to make observable predictions by
one bit and would do absolutely nothing except muzzle the
Schrödinger Equation which is virtually shouting at us about the
nature of reality. The Many Worlds theory didn't tack on all those
many worlds, if you take a bare bones approach to quantum mechanics
and add nothing not needed to explain observation those worlds come
naturally, they can't be avoided.


So why do all Everettians have to add so many additional assumptions
in order to pretend to get out the Born rule?




Simply assuming the special case of the Born rule that measuring a 
system in an eigenstate of an observable will yield the eigenvalue of 
that eigenstate with  certainty, is enough. You can consider the case of 
repeatedly preparing and measuring N copies of a system and then 
consider the observable that corresponds to the frequency distribution 
of the individual measurement outcomes in the limit of N to infinity. 
The special case of the Born rule applied to observable for the 
frequency distribution then implies the general Born rule.


Saibal

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4707a062d82e24c48214c447322d1d2e%40zonnet.nl.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-17 Thread smitra

On 17-09-2019 09:16, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:08 PM Alan Grayson
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 1:02:39 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 4:51 PM Alan Grayson
wrote:

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 3:54:46 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:22 AM Alan Grayson
wrote:

_> When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM AND
Relativity, people when overboard. Now any patently absurd result
finds its justification among true believers._

And in this context "patently absurd" means odd, not logically
contradictory not paradoxical not contrary to experimental results,
just odd. But as far as we know there is no law that says nature
can't behave in ways that humans find odd.

Many "odd" results are now mainstream, but MWI is bridge too far, way
too far IMO. Why don't you just accept that the wf is simply
irrelevant after the measurement occurs like in the horserace
example?. Here, there's no collapse, no many worlds, no need to
explain where the energy comes from which defines these worlds, and so
forth? AG

Except that horses and horse races do not interfere (except in
Australia, where several jockeys and trainers have recently been
suspended for unauthorised interference -- but that is a different
matter!)

Bruce

I know. I was just being illustrative. But note that Carroll says much
the same thing when he says worlds are created when you make a left or
right turn, or flip a coin (or some equivalent analogy). AG

And that is where Sean slips inevitably into woo-woo.

No, this is a rather solid result from assuming the validity of the
Schrodinger equation:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953

"We argue using simple models that all successful practical uses of
probabilities originate in quantum fluctuations in the microscopic
physical world around us, often propagated to macroscopic scales. Thus
we claim there is no physically verified fully classical theory of
probability. We comment on the general implications of this view, and
specifically question the application of classical probability theory to
cosmology in cases where key questions are known to have no quantum
answer. We argue that the ideas developed here may offer a way out of
the notorious measure problems of eternal inflation."

Saibal

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-17 Thread Philip Thrift



On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 8:20:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 16 Sep 2019, at 10:49, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:41:41 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is 
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsXCwUsuvKo>
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>
>
>
>
> "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a 
> failure of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both.
>
>
> Why?
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>From a pragmatic perspective, I do not see any Everettian MW (theory, math, 
ideas, formulations, interpretations or whatever they want to call it) in 
computational quantum mechanics:

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/flatiron/center-for-computational-quantum-physics/software

If MW were important, it would be there.

@philipthrift

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/233a6a14-fb59-4103-9829-5b2b9c5d0f47%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-17 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 7:30 AM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*> The fact that the squared amplitudes add up to unity is not particularly
> surprising when you have normalised the wave function!*
>

True, and it's also not surprising that it always gives you positive
numbers, and that's just what you need for a probability.

> > *Showing that this is a probability is a whole other kettle of bananas.*
>

And that other kettle of bananas is seeing if treating the square of the
amplitude as a probability is compatible with experimental observation. And
it is.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv09XWhbB7EAK3QvwtpRYz31mYsX6mmNN3Kj9HV6fWUUJg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-17 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 16 Sep 2019, at 10:49, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:41:41 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
> Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is 
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsXCwUsuvKo>
> 
> John K Clark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a failure 
> of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both.

Why?

Bruno



> 
> @philipthrift 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c253db8c-0936-4e5c-a897-fca18b311431%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c253db8c-0936-4e5c-a897-fca18b311431%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9B8BFBBE-5F4D-4B80-8862-FEE79449DB10%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 8:43 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 2:51 AM Alan Grayson 
> wrote:
>
> > *Why don't you just accept that the wf is simply irrelevant after the
>> measurement occurs*
>>
>
> Because you can't explain exactly what is and what is not a "measurement".
> And because tacking on complicated mathematical wheels within wheels to
> make the wave function suddenly vanish would not improve the theories
> ability to make observable predictions by one bit and would do absolutely
> nothing except muzzle the Schrödinger Equation which is virtually shouting
> at us about the nature of reality. The Many Worlds theory didn't tack on
> all those many worlds, if you take a bare bones approach to quantum
> mechanics and add nothing not needed to explain observation those worlds
> come naturally, they can't be avoided.
>

So why do all Everettians have to add so many additional assumptions in
order to pretend to get out the Born rule?

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/CAFxXSLQ%3DxXCvOrY_cBiXeo3otcuHVNd6H83ZDSnkDsL5-C7gLA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 7:50 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 7:57 PM 'Brent Meeker <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >> Many Worlds could be called Austere Quantum Mechanics because it adds
>> nothing to Schrödinger's Equation because nothing more is needed to explain
>> observations.
>>
>>
>> * > You still need the Born rule, including its intepretation as a
>> probability.*
>>
>
> Every quantum interpretation needs the Born rule, but it comes pretty
> naturally. If you square the amplitude of the Schrödinger wave you
> automatically get numbers that are positive and unitary, that is the always
> add up to exactly 100%. And those are 2 properties a probability must have,
> negative probability has no meaning and there is always a 100% chance
> SOMETHING will happen.
>

The fact that the squared amplitudes add up to unity is not particularly
surprising when you have normalised the wave function! Showing that this is
a probability is a whole other kettle of bananas.

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/CAFxXSLTT-kurjSOhc6zvCQoEEXw2_CFuH4HyN8JWvqp8brFn5A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-17 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 2:51 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> *Why don't you just accept that the wf is simply irrelevant after the
> measurement occurs*
>

Because you can't explain exactly what is and what is not a "measurement".
And because tacking on complicated mathematical wheels within wheels to
make the wave function suddenly vanish would not improve the theories
ability to make observable predictions by one bit and would do absolutely
nothing except muzzle the Schrödinger Equation which is virtually shouting
at us about the nature of reality. The Many Worlds theory didn't tack on
all those many worlds, if you take a bare bones approach to quantum
mechanics and add nothing not needed to explain observation those worlds
come naturally, they can't be avoided.

 John K Clark

>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2vH5-BsEXJDFJ%2B5YYinZ4EFqPoKuc%3DB-sNJyvvtat-tg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-17 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 7:57 PM 'Brent Meeker <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> >> Many Worlds could be called Austere Quantum Mechanics because it adds
> nothing to Schrödinger's Equation because nothing more is needed to explain
> observations.
>
>
> * > You still need the Born rule, including its intepretation as a
> probability.*
>

Every quantum interpretation needs the Born rule, but it comes pretty
naturally. If you square the amplitude of the Schrödinger wave you
automatically get numbers that are positive and unitary, that is the always
add up to exactly 100%. And those are 2 properties a probability must have,
negative probability has no meaning and there is always a 100% chance
SOMETHING will happen.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3pzTK6jtd3UcTubM64J%3Dx%3DOgyJa8M56cvZ7BU6_0yy4g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:08 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 1:02:39 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 4:51 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 3:54:46 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:

 On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:22 AM Alan Grayson 
 wrote:

 *> When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM
> and Relativity, people when overboard. Now any patently absurd result 
> finds
> its justification among true believers.*
>

 And in this context "patently absurd" means odd, not logically
 contradictory not paradoxical not contrary to experimental results, just
 odd. But as far as we know there is no law that says nature can't behave in
 ways that humans find odd.

>>>
>>> Many "odd" results are now mainstream, but MWI is bridge too far, way
>>> too far IMO. Why don't you just accept that the wf is simply irrelevant
>>> after the measurement occurs like in the horserace example?. Here, there's
>>> no collapse, no many worlds, no need to explain where the energy comes from
>>> which defines these worlds, and so forth? AG
>>>
>>
>> Except that horses and horse races do not interfere (except in Australia,
>> where several jockeys and trainers have recently been suspended for
>> unauthorised interference -- but that is a different matter!)
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> I know. I was just being illustrative. But note that Carroll says much the
> same thing when he says worlds are created when you make a left or right
> turn, or flip a coin (or some equivalent analogy). AG
>

And that is where Sean slips inevitably into woo-woo.

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/CAFxXSLRWEhcgisyY22wfpefvxs4P%2BQQzUyks81EgVYTK%2BQy18w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-17 Thread Alan Grayson



On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 1:02:39 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 4:51 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
>> On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 3:54:46 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:22 AM Alan Grayson  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> *> When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM 
 and Relativity, people when overboard. Now any patently absurd result 
 finds 
 its justification among true believers.*

>>>
>>> And in this context "patently absurd" means odd, not logically 
>>> contradictory not paradoxical not contrary to experimental results, just 
>>> odd. But as far as we know there is no law that says nature can't behave in 
>>> ways that humans find odd.
>>>
>>
>> Many "odd" results are now mainstream, but MWI is bridge too far, way too 
>> far IMO. Why don't you just accept that the wf is simply irrelevant after 
>> the measurement occurs like in the horserace example?. Here, there's no 
>> collapse, no many worlds, no need to explain where the energy comes from 
>> which defines these worlds, and so forth? AG
>>
>
> Except that horses and horse races do not interfere (except in Australia, 
> where several jockeys and trainers have recently been suspended for 
> unauthorised interference -- but that is a different matter!)
>
> Bruce
>

I know. I was just being illustrative. But note that Carroll says much the 
same thing when he says worlds are created when you make a left or right 
turn, or flip a coin (or some equivalent analogy). 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/5f0c1b72-492b-47cc-aa3f-7e7d1b5c4cff%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 4:51 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 3:54:46 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:22 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>> *> When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM
>>> and Relativity, people when overboard. Now any patently absurd result finds
>>> its justification among true believers.*
>>>
>>
>> And in this context "patently absurd" means odd, not logically
>> contradictory not paradoxical not contrary to experimental results, just
>> odd. But as far as we know there is no law that says nature can't behave in
>> ways that humans find odd.
>>
>
> Many "odd" results are now mainstream, but MWI is bridge too far, way too
> far IMO. Why don't you just accept that the wf is simply irrelevant after
> the measurement occurs like in the horserace example?. Here, there's no
> collapse, no many worlds, no need to explain where the energy comes from
> which defines these worlds, and so forth? AG
>

Except that horses and horse races do not interfere (except in Australia,
where several jockeys and trainers have recently been suspended for
unauthorised interference -- but that is a different matter!)

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/CAFxXSLQotf9XVmTXHaeyXeVeFrd_O__Dw2cZ-bV23uCLXDH-eg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-17 Thread Alan Grayson



On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 3:54:46 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:

 

> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:22 AM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
> *> When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM and Relativity, 
>> people when overboard. Now any patently absurd result finds its 
>> justification among true believers.*
>>
>
> And in this context "patently absurd" means odd, not logically 
> contradictory not paradoxical not contrary to experimental results, just 
> odd. But as far as we know there is no law that says nature can't behave in 
> ways that humans find odd.
>

Many "odd" results are now mainstream, but MWI is bridge too far, way too 
far IMO. Why don't you just accept that the wf is simply irrelevant after 
the measurement occurs like in the horserace example?. Here, there's no 
collapse, no many worlds, no need to explain where the energy comes from 
which defines these worlds, and so forth? AG 

>  
>
>> *> So what happened to the (non-covariant) wf after the measurement? 
>> Nothing.*
>>
>
> True, and that's what Many Worlds says, nothing happens to the Schrödinger 
> wave of the universe described by his equation, it just keeps on going 
> forever.
>

MW says that and a hellofalot MORE! I gave you a hugely simpler solution. 
Why don't you take it and go in peace? AG

>  
>
>> > Like a horserace when it reaches conclusion, it's no longer 
>> applicable. That simple! The collapse hypothesis is just a bookkeeping 
>> device to get rid of it!
>>
>
> True again, the collapse hypothesis was tacked on not because it explained 
> observations better but because some people didn't like those many worlds, 
> so they just said some mysterious process makes them disappear even though 
> they can't clearly explain how this process does this or explain exactly 
> what circumstances are needed for it to take effect. In Sean Carroll's new 
> book, which I just started reading, he says Many Worlds could be called 
> Austere Quantum Mechanics because it adds nothing to Schrödinger's Equation 
> because nothing more is needed to explain observations.  Hugh Everett 
> didn't add any new physics, when he came up with Many Worlds, he just 
> followed the Schrödinger Equation as far as it would go and junked a lot of 
> useless gunk (like the collapse hypothesis) that did nothing except make 
> people who were squeamish about the idea there was more than one version of 
> them more comfortable.  
>
>  John K Clark
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ccf2172a-2261-485d-a736-90fc3540a276%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 2:41 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
> Yeah, but despite Chopra there was Linde is seems to be a reliable.
> physicist. Also, the dismissive crap performed by number crunchers, dismiss
> it because it merely offends their sense of...conventionality. Outside of
> Bruno, and Young, Standish, nobody else here is employed as an academician
> is there?
>

When I was employed (which was some time ago) I was certainly an academic.
Besides, it is not who you are, or what your current employment is, that
counts. It is whether you talk sense or nonsense.  Linde is not the only
professor of physics to go out onto speculative limbs from time to time.
Carroll seems to have fallen into the popularity trap of trying to make the
physics more sensational than it actually is.

Bruce

Sagan, who gets quoted here, offered woo, in Cosmos, and basically. 40
> years later what do we know of the universe (currently) save that is a
> great, expanse of gas, dust, bereft of other civilizations, that we can
> never, in principle ever reach via probes. I, for one, look for some sort
> of commercial...intellectual..technological...somehow, some way..ROI. We
> need a pay out, in some fashion.
>

-- 
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/CAFxXSLTSzFZ-94%3DqKT1hAsv2efT0%2Bx1p8jto9F2xZG8HR9zrMA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is


Yeah, but despite Chopra there was Linde is seems to be a reliable. physicist. 
Also, the dismissive crap performed by number crunchers, dismiss it because it 
merely offends their sense of...conventionality. Outside of  Bruno, and Young, 
Standish, nobody else here is employed as an academician is there? Sagan, who 
gets quoted here, offered woo, in Cosmos, and basically. 40 years later what do 
we know of the universe (currently) save that is a great, expanse of gas, dust, 
bereft of other civilizations, that we can never, in principle ever reach via 
probes. I, for one, look for some sort of 
commercial...intellectual..technological...somehow, some way..ROI. We need a 
pay out, in some fashion. 

-Original Message-
From: Bruce Kellett 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Sep 16, 2019 10:23 pm
Subject: Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 12:19 PM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

Agnostic, Mind-Brain thing is good with me. According to a brief article, some 
theorists have mused about consciousness in the absence of matter. Check it 
out. It will either be a good laugh for you, but once in a while, the 'lofty' 
stuff works for me. 


As soon as the article mentioned Deepak Chopra I knew that we were deep into 
woo-woo territory
Bruce 
From: Bruce Kellett 

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:39 AM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

It would be (will be?) interesting when we achieve this. Serious, academic 
bench computer scientists are actively working on variations of machine 
intelligence to make this happen, money to be made. Are you stating that making 
a hyper-smart machine is impossible?

No, I am agnostic about the possibility. Certainly I am not a Cartesian dualist 
-- mind-brain identity is the thing.
Bruce 
 Are you a spiritualist? A Cartesian dualist imputing a magic substance? :-) 


From: Bruce Kellett 
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 6:44 AM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:
 
So, if we develop AI to come up with new, better, equations, this would be good 
with you, because, non-human? 

Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with any 
humanly devised equation."
Bruce


Go for it, man! First develop your super-intelligent AI.. And then see 
if the world conforms to its predictions..
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/CAFxXSLSR8NfcwfJ%2B%2BGxVWvg76%3Dy1%3DLq4pSkU_wn9CtD3XcV59A%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/313961629.8410799.1568695261396%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-16 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 12:19 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Agnostic, Mind-Brain thing is good with me. According to a brief article,
> some theorists have mused about consciousness in the absence of matter.
> Check it out. It will either be a good laugh for you, but once in a while,
> the 'lofty' stuff works for me.
>

As soon as the article mentioned Deepak Chopra I knew that we were deep
into woo-woo territory

Bruce


> From: Bruce Kellett 
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:39 AM spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> It would be (will be?) interesting when we achieve this. Serious, academic
> bench computer scientists are actively working on variations of machine
> intelligence to make this happen, money to be made. Are you stating that
> making a hyper-smart machine is impossible?
>
>
> No, I am agnostic about the possibility. Certainly I am not a Cartesian
> dualist -- mind-brain identity is the thing.
>
> Bruce
>
>
> Are you a spiritualist? A Cartesian dualist imputing a magic substance?
> :-)
>
>
> From: Bruce Kellett 
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 6:44 AM spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> So, if we develop AI to come up with new, better, equations, this would be
> good with you, because, non-human?
>
> Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with
> any humanly devised equation."
>
> Bruce
>
>
> Go for it, man! First develop your super-intelligent AI.. And then
> see if the world conforms to its predictions..
>
> 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/CAFxXSLSR8NfcwfJ%2B%2BGxVWvg76%3Dy1%3DLq4pSkU_wn9CtD3XcV59A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

Agnostic, Mind-Brain thing is good with me. According to a brief article, some 
theorists have mused about consciousness in the absence of matter. Check it 
out. It will either be a good laugh for you, but once in a while, the 'lofty' 
stuff works for me. 


-Original Message-
From: Bruce Kellett 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Sep 16, 2019 9:08 pm
Subject: Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:39 AM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

It would be (will be?) interesting when we achieve this. Serious, academic 
bench computer scientists are actively working on variations of machine 
intelligence to make this happen, money to be made. Are you stating that making 
a hyper-smart machine is impossible?

No, I am agnostic about the possibility. Certainly I am not a Cartesian dualist 
-- mind-brain identity is the thing.
Bruce 
 Are you a spiritualist? A Cartesian dualist imputing a magic substance? :-) 


From: Bruce Kellett 
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 6:44 AM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:
 
So, if we develop AI to come up with new, better, equations, this would be good 
with you, because, non-human? 

Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with any 
humanly devised equation."
Bruce


Go for it, man! First develop your super-intelligent AI.. And then see 
if the world conforms to its predictions..
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/CAFxXSLSFN0Q-cN45XKRnND8QynV7Kjbpgyz9jNdJgUSJy2NeKA%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/1033308852.8315517.1568686751450%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

Speaking of the observable being just a sliver, I wonder if this article is 
worth consideration? It's a consciousness thing, which seems to be in 
opposition to matter, if I read correctly? There are a few other physicists for 
the worthies here, to defame, so it might be a bit of fun?
https://dailygalaxy.com/2019/09/the-ultimate-mystery-consciousness-may-exist-in-the-absence-of-matter-weekend-feature/


-Original Message-
From: spudboy100 via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Sep 16, 2019 4:44 pm
Subject: Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

So, if we develop AI to come up with new, better, equations, this would be good 
with you, because, non-human? 

Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with any 
humanly devised equation."
Bruce



-Original Message-
From: Bruce Kellett 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Sep 16, 2019 8:11 am
Subject: Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:58 PM John Clark  wrote:

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:49 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:


> "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a failure 
> of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both.

And I think the above demonstrates a lack of courage to face the possibility 
that reality may be structured in ways you do not like. As Carl Sagan said  
"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition".
 Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with any 
humanly devised equation."
Bruce -- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSUoS-nCn4bvavNep6mHNYmeUq_0%2BGMyQQF%2BPxuV8KTBQ%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/1958873613.8197096.156888820%40mail.yahoo.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/1060122003.8357377.1568686298817%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-16 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:39 AM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> It would be (will be?) interesting when we achieve this. Serious, academic
> bench computer scientists are actively working on variations of machine
> intelligence to make this happen, money to be made. Are you stating that
> making a hyper-smart machine is impossible?
>

No, I am agnostic about the possibility. Certainly I am not a Cartesian
dualist -- mind-brain identity is the thing.

Bruce


> Are you a spiritualist? A Cartesian dualist imputing a magic substance?
> :-)
>
>
> From: Bruce Kellett 
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 6:44 AM spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> So, if we develop AI to come up with new, better, equations, this would be
> good with you, because, non-human?
>
> Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with
> any humanly devised equation."
>
> Bruce
>
>
> Go for it, man! First develop your super-intelligent AI.. And then
> see if the world conforms to its predictions..
>
> 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/CAFxXSLSFN0Q-cN45XKRnND8QynV7Kjbpgyz9jNdJgUSJy2NeKA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

It would be (will be?) interesting when we achieve this. Serious, academic 
bench computer scientists are actively working on variations of machine 
intelligence to make this happen, money to be made. Are you stating that making 
a hyper-smart machine is impossible? Are you a spiritualist? A Cartesian 
dualist imputing a magic substance? :-) 

-Original Message-
From: Bruce Kellett 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Sep 16, 2019 7:28 pm
Subject: Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 6:44 AM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

So, if we develop AI to come up with new, better, equations, this would be good 
with you, because, non-human? 

Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with any 
humanly devised equation."
Bruce

Go for it, man! First develop your super-intelligent AI.. And then see 
if the world conforms to its predictions..
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/CAFxXSLQJYjJKFxRMHb57F_TQMYHxK%2BhsMWfR-Sr_DpU08xTsBg%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/2077664134.8276696.1568680781004%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-16 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 9/16/2019 2:54 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:22 AM Alan Grayson > wrote:

/> When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM
*and* Relativity, people when overboard. Now any patently absurd
result finds its justification among true believers./

/> So what happened to the (non-covariant) wf after the
measurement? Nothing./

True, and that's what Many Worlds says, nothing happens to
the Schrödinger wave of the universe described by his equation, it
just keeps on going forever.

> Like a horserace when it reaches conclusion, it's no longer
applicable. That simple! The collapse hypothesis is just a
bookkeeping device to get rid of it!

True again, the collapse hypothesis was tacked on not because it
explained observations better but because some people didn't like
those many worlds, so they just said some mysterious process makes
them disappear even though they can't clearly explain how this process
does this or explain exactly what circumstances are needed for it to
take effect. In Sean Carroll's new book, which I just started reading,
he says Many Worlds could be called Austere Quantum Mechanics because
it adds nothing to Schrödinger's Equation because nothing more is
needed to explain observations.

You still need the Born rule, including its intepretation as a probability.

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/3cbade59-7999-b318-aeeb-4e9ca4770bce%40verizon.net.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-16 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 6:44 AM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:


> So, if we develop AI to come up with new, better, equations, this would be
> good with you, because, non-human?
>
> Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with
> any humanly devised equation."
>
> Bruce
>
>
Go for it, man! First develop your super-intelligent AI.. And then
see if the world conforms to its predictions..

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/CAFxXSLQJYjJKFxRMHb57F_TQMYHxK%2BhsMWfR-Sr_DpU08xTsBg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-16 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:22 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:

*> When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM and Relativity,
> people when overboard. Now any patently absurd result finds its
> justification among true believers.*
>

And in this context "patently absurd" means odd, not logically
contradictory not paradoxical not contrary to experimental results, just
odd. But as far as we know there is no law that says nature can't behave in
ways that humans find odd.

> *> So what happened to the (non-covariant) wf after the measurement?
> Nothing.*
>

True, and that's what Many Worlds says, nothing happens to the Schrödinger wave
of the universe described by his equation, it just keeps on going forever.

> > Like a horserace when it reaches conclusion, it's no longer applicable.
> That simple! The collapse hypothesis is just a bookkeeping device to get
> rid of it!
>

True again, the collapse hypothesis was tacked on not because it explained
observations better but because some people didn't like those many worlds,
so they just said some mysterious process makes them disappear even though
they can't clearly explain how this process does this or explain exactly
what circumstances are needed for it to take effect. In Sean Carroll's new
book, which I just started reading, he says Many Worlds could be called
Austere Quantum Mechanics because it adds nothing to Schrödinger's Equation
because nothing more is needed to explain observations.  Hugh Everett
didn't add any new physics, when he came up with Many Worlds, he just
followed the Schrödinger Equation as far as it would go and junked a lot of
useless gunk (like the collapse hypothesis) that did nothing except make
people who were squeamish about the idea there was more than one version of
them more comfortable.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1B0b%3DYdeY0%2BQVZvopEqtAa44D40AE%2BScMLhzCOP4brtg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-09-16 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 9/16/2019 6:22 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 5:58:58 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:49 AM Philip Thrift > wrote:

> "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here)
demonstrates a failure of theoretical physics, or philosophy,
or both.


And I think the above demonstrates a lack of courage to face the
possibility that reality may be structured in ways you do not
like. As Carl Sagan said  "/The universe is not required to be in
perfect harmony with human ambition/".

 John K Clark


When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM 
*and* Relativity, people when overboard. Now any patently absurd 
result finds its justification among true believers. So what happened 
to the (non-covariant)


You need to read this: 
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2016/08/15/you-should-love-or-at-least-respect-the-schrodinger-equation/


Brent

wf after the measurement? Nothing. Like a horserace when it reaches 
conclusion, it's no longer applicable. That simple! The collapse 
hypothesis is just a bookkeeping device to get rid of it! 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/31aa3956-a0be-af5e-2959-905ef54eb62e%40verizon.net.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is