What a nice little war. Technically Bruce is right, but this just shows
that we have misunderstood the issue. Of course mass/energy in each branch
is unaffected by the split; we just need to find another, sane way to
express the idea.
Here is what I understand; correct me if I am wrong. In the
On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 3:08:43 PM UTC+3 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> [...]
Thanks for the reply. Here I address only the comments about my proposal
(for a decision theory w/o probability of single events). Your message has
some good criticism of the proposed decision theory. I plan to sta
> On 4/28/2022 10:45 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> Exactly what axiom would that be? It can't be the Born rule because that
> is not an axiom, that is an experimentaly derived fact.
>
> If I take some experimental result as granted, then it is an axiom, in my
system. If you think we need to be more
On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 11:49:03 PM UTC+3 meeke...@gmail.com (Bent)
wrote:
> In unitary evolution per the Schroedinger equation there are no "paticular
> universes", there's only a ray in Hilbert space. Multiple universes is a
> FAPP viewpoint. But so is wave-function collapse.
>
I am
On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 2:55:37 PM UTC+3 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> It's not perfect, no analogy is, but classical thermodynamics can provide
> a pretty good analogy.[...] but that world is *VASTLY* outnumbered by
> worlds in which other things happen.
>
You mean, statistical mechanics
On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 4:12:12 AM UTC+3 Bruce wrote:
> The distinctive feature of Everettian Many worlds theory is that every
> possible outcome is realized on every trial. I don't think that you have
> absorbed the full significance of this revolutionary idea. There is no
> classical
On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 5:57:03 AM UTC+3 Bruce wrote:
> If one wants to persist with unitary evolution, one cannot avoid the
Schrodinger equation. This has a number of consequences for the theory. One
is that the theory is deterministic -- there are no probabilities, and all
outcomes of
On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 4:09:23 AM UTC+3 Bruce wrote:
> Despite Carroll's protestations (and the similar protestations of others),
> energy cannot be conserved in the multiverse -- each split must duplicate
> the energy of the whole as many times as there are branches.
Thanks for the ci
On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 1:54:36 AM UTC+3 Bruce wrote:
we now know that MWI is inconsistent with any sensible interpretation of
> probability; strict MWI is inconsistent with the Born rule.
Dittos!!! At least, mostly.
What do you mean "we now know"? Any citations, pretty please?
I gather
On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 2:13:43 PM UTC+3 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 6:04 PM George Kahrimanis
> wrote:
>
>
>> > Strictly speaking, zero information implies "undefined probability",
>
>
> Sure, but[...]
>
Sorry, but if
On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 1:33:46 AM UTC+3 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 4/21/2022 3:03 PM, George Kahrimanis wrote:
>
> [...] Strictly speaking, zero information implies "undefined probability",
> or "imprecise probability between 0 and 1". The reason it is
In my current way of thinking, the disagreement between Alan Grayson and
John K. Clark is about two subtly different concepts under the same name,
"probability". For example, when I read "80% chance of rain today", I may
think that in some possible futures it will not rain (so probability is
me
On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 3:54:04 AM UTC+3 Bruce wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:05 AM George Kahrimanis
> wrote:
>
>> -2- The "box" (in which Scroedinger's cat is enclosed, with the lethal
>> apparatus) contains also its "environment&
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 11:09 AM Brent Meeker wrote:
> The only purpose of the box in Schroedinger's thought experiment was to
>> put off the observers perception. Really the thought experiment is over
>> when the radioactive decay occurs. That atom has transitioned to a
>> different nuclear
On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 3:35:22 PM UTC+3 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG
>
I think I have come to a crisp understanding of this issue, which I want to
submit to you. However, we must take into consideration that the notion of
probabil
Just clarifications.
On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 2:15:48 AM UTC+3 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
> But the purpose of randomizing the polarizer settings using photon from
> sources on opposite sides of the universe is to prevent anyone from knowing
> both settings before a measurement.
>
The point
*CHANGE OF MIND.* Not that I made any technical mistake in my previous
posting, but I failed to think out the conclusion properly. I was just
stupid -- am I allowed to flame myself? In brief: splits propagating on
light cones seems to be the correct conclusion, properly understood. Sorry
for sa
Bruce wrote
> [...] Since I have not been able to formulate an argument that has
convinced Saibal, there seems little point in continuing the discussion.
Not yet, because I just got an idea of what went wrong in the
communication. Part of it was the understanding (maybe it was just me!) of
"loc
On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 8:55:48 PM UTC+3 meeke...@gmail.com (Brent)
wrote:
Decoherence has gone part way in solving the when/where/what basis
> questions, but only part way.
>
As I wrote at the end of my first reply to your message, I share your
concern about decoherence but I see the
Thanks for the comments!
On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 8:55:48 PM UTC+3 meeke...@gmail.com (Brent)
wrote:
Physics doesn't care about "rationally justified", only about empirically
> justified.
I admit that I have carried the subject to philosophy of physics, but only
because this kind of s
On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 3:19:08 AM UTC+3 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> This is an appeal to some sort of imperative that demands the Born Rule
> because the counterfactual lack this certainty. This is a sort of "It must
> be true" type of argument.
Thanks for the comments! I wonder though, do
> point I am trying to get across.
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 3:07 AM George Kahrimanis wrote:
>
>> A realistic version of the scenario with Bob and Alice [...]
>>
>> There have always been worries about detection inefficiencies and errors
> in the tests of
On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:29:07 AM UTC+3 Bruce wrote:
> If the memory is reversed (whatever that might mean) then there is no
> evidence that the memory ever existed. You are back into fantasy-land.
No, there is a formal proof that an entanglement can be reversed and
nonetheless we stil
Bruce wrote
> [...] But by the rules of MWI, there is also a copy of Alice with result
|1> who meets a Bob who recorded |1> for the 10th trial. This contradicts
QM, in fact it violates angular momentum conservation, so no such Alice/Bob
coupling is possible. But, by following the rules of local
Saibal wrote
> [...] it's not appropriate to fix up the theory by introducing notions
from the macroscopic domain that should in principle follow from the
fundamental dynamics at the micro-level. [...]
Brent wrote
> The notion of "result" and "measurement" are not introduced, they are
fundament
e Abstract and the first
subsection of the Introduction.
An argument for workability of QM leads to the Born Rule, for QM without
collapse and for QM with collapse
George Kahrimanis [, ...]
6 April 2022, incomplete work
ABSTRACT
Any interpretation of QM without collapse (a.k.a. a MWI) cruci
26 matches
Mail list logo
