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

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

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

> On 15 Oct 2019, at 18:57, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 10/15/2019 5:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Imagine the WM-duplication, or better here, a guy who is duplicated in two virtual rooms, numerically identical, except for a close virtual envelop

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

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

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

On 10/15/2019 5:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Imagine the WM-duplication, or better here, a guy who is duplicated in two virtual rooms, numerically identical, except for a close virtual envelop with a paper containing 1 (written on a paper)  in room 1 and 2 in room 2. If the person there

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

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

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

> On 14 Oct 2019, at 20:28, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 10/14/2019 7:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 11 Oct 2019, at 01:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/6/2019 3:03 AM,

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

> On 14 Oct 2019, at 20:06, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 9:20:28 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 11 Oct 2019, at 01:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/6/2019 3:03 AM, smitra wrote: And with finite

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

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

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

On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 1:28:26 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > Which is the QBist interpretation of QM. [ Re: Gödel-Löb-Solovay > “theology”] > > Brent > > > MWI is QB on steroids. @philpthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything

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

On 10/14/2019 7:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Oct 2019, at 01:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 10/6/2019 3:03 AM, smitra wrote: And with finite information in the universe there is not distinction between recurrences and

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

On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 9:20:28 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 11 Oct 2019, at 01:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > > > > On 10/6/2019 3:03 AM, smitra wrote: > > > And with finite information in the universe there is not distinction

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

> On 11 Oct 2019, at 01:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 10/6/2019 3:03 AM, smitra wrote: >>> >>> And with finite information in the universe there is not distinction >>> between recurrences and hence there are no recurrences. >>> >> >> Yes, but there will also

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

On 10/6/2019 3:03 AM, smitra wrote: And with finite information in the universe there is not distinction between recurrences and hence there are no recurrences. Yes, but there will also be imperfect recurrences where the difference will go unnoticed for an observer until a measurement is

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

On 04-10-2019 23:36, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On 10/4/2019 12:03 AM, smitra wrote: On 04-10-2019 08:20, Philip Thrift wrote: On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 6:56:59 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:12 AM Philip Thrift wrote: On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at

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

On 04-10-2019 23:09, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On 10/3/2019 11:49 PM, smitra wrote: On 04-10-2019 00:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell wrote: This really is a well enough explained question. LC Energy conservation is not violated

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

> On 6 Oct 2019, at 10:31, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 1:19:52 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 5 Oct 2019, at 13:08, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 2:21:34 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 4 Oct 2019,

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

On 06-10-2019 12:38, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 8:37 PM smitra wrote: On 04-10-2019 09:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:03 PM smitra wrote: The descendant worlds get the same energy if they have well defined energy in which case computing the weighted

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

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 2:55:26 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/6/2019 2:37 AM, smitra wrote: > > On 04-10-2019 09:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:03 PM smitra > > wrote: > >> > >>> The descendant worlds get the same energy if they have well defined > >>>

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

On 10/6/2019 2:37 AM, smitra wrote: On 04-10-2019 09:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:03 PM smitra wrote: The descendant worlds get the same energy if they have well defined energy in which case computing the weighted average to get to the expectation value is

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

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 8:37 PM smitra wrote: > On 04-10-2019 09:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:03 PM smitra wrote: > > > >> The descendant worlds get the same energy if they have well defined > >> energy in which case computing the weighted average to get to the > >>

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

On 04-10-2019 09:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:03 PM smitra wrote: The descendant worlds get the same energy if they have well defined energy in which case computing the weighted average to get to the expectation value is unnecessary. In general the expectation value will

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

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 1:19:52 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 5 Oct 2019, at 13:08, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 2:21:34 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 4 Oct 2019, at 20:04, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, October 4,

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

> On 5 Oct 2019, at 13:08, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 2:21:34 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 4 Oct 2019, at 20:04, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:28:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 4 Oct 2019,

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

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 2:21:34 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 4 Oct 2019, at 20:04, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:28:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 4 Oct 2019, at 00:53, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> The question is about

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

> On 4 Oct 2019, at 20:04, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:28:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 4 Oct 2019, at 00:53, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> The question is about quantum many worlds. Not cosmology. > > Cosmology assumes the quantum at a

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

> On 4 Oct 2019, at 19:45, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:12:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 3 Oct 2019, at 21:07, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/3/2019 10:44 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Thursday,

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

On 10/4/2019 12:03 AM, smitra wrote: On 04-10-2019 08:20, Philip Thrift wrote: On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 6:56:59 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:12 AM Philip Thrift wrote: On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:51:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM

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

On 10/3/2019 11:49 PM, smitra wrote: On 04-10-2019 00:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell wrote: This really is a well enough explained question. LC Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the total energy, you have to weigh

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

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:28:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 4 Oct 2019, at 00:53, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > The question is about quantum many worlds. Not cosmology. > > > Cosmology assumes the quantum at a cosmological scale, and it is where a > collapse makes the less

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

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:12:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 3 Oct 2019, at 21:07, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > > > > On 10/3/2019 10:44 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-5, Brent

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

> On 4 Oct 2019, at 00:53, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > The question is about quantum many worlds. Not cosmology. Cosmology assumes the quantum at a cosmological scale, and it is where a collapse makes the less sense. Who would observe and be responsible for the collapse of the universal

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

> On 3 Oct 2019, at 21:07, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 10/3/2019 10:44 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> > Why would the energy of a branch be

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

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 2:03:59 AM UTC-5, smitra wrote: > > On 04-10-2019 08:20, Philip Thrift wrote: > > On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 6:56:59 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:12 AM Philip Thrift > >> wrote: > >> > >> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at

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

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:03 PM smitra wrote: > > The descendant worlds get the same energy if they have well defined > energy in which case computing the weighted average to get to the > expectation value is unnecessary. In general the expectation value will > need to be computed by this

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

On 04-10-2019 08:20, Philip Thrift wrote: On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 6:56:59 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:12 AM Philip Thrift wrote: On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:51:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell wrote: This really is

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

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:49 PM smitra wrote: > On 04-10-2019 00:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > The trouble I see with the explanation Sabine gives, which is probably > > the most common response to this question, is that it dilutes the > > energy in each branch according to the Born weight.

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

On 04-10-2019 00:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell wrote: This really is a well enough explained question. LC Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the total energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with the

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

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

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

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:12 AM Philip Thrift wrote: > On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:51:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell >> wrote: >> >>> This really is a well enough explained question. >>> >>> LC >>> >>> Energy conservation is not violated

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

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:51:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > >> This really is a well enough explained question. >> >> LC >> >> Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the total >>> energy, you have to

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

The question is about quantum many worlds. Not cosmology. @philipthrift On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:22:02 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > Energy isn't even conserved under conventional cosmological models. The > expansion of space causes a loss of radiation energy, and if vacuum energy > is

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

Right. It's a perfectly good question that Sabine doesn't answer. (Of course if there is one world, there is no problem. But no reasonable physicist believes in many worlds. They are deluded by math.) @philipthrift On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:24:55 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

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

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > This really is a well enough explained question. > > LC > > Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the total >> energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with the

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

This really is a well enough explained question. LC On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:24:15 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > Finding Sabine Hossenfelder there ... > > David Appell10:49 PM, October 02, 2019 > > Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new >

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

Energy isn't even conserved under conventional cosmological models. The expansion of space causes a loss of radiation energy, and if vacuum energy is non zero (also an assumed by current models) the Hubble expansion is creating energy. Jason On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 2:33 PM Philip Thrift wrote:

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

There is no way for the Many Worldists to squirrel out of it. Run the code *Getting started with Qiskit: while exploring the quantum world, let’s play the coin flip game!*

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

On 03-10-2019 19:44, Philip Thrift wrote: On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it can't

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

On 10/3/2019 10:44 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:39:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of > occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so

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

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 11:39:09 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/3/2019 6:29 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > Why would the energy of a branch be related to its probability of > > occurrance? One can imagine a very low probability, so low that it > > can't even contain copies of the

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

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

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

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

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

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 8:30:00 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 4:24:15 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> Finding Sabine Hossenfelder there ... >> >> David Appell10:49 PM, October 02, 2019 >> >> Can't one of you please tell us dummies

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

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 4:24:15 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > Finding Sabine Hossenfelder there ... > > David Appell10:49 PM, October 02, 2019 > > Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new > branched off world requires no new energy? > > None of

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

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 7:56:03 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 7:04 AM Philip Thrift > wrote: > > * >>> Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new >> branched off world requires no new energy?* >> > > > >> Can somebody explain to

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

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 7:04 AM Philip Thrift wrote: * >>> Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new > branched off world requires no new energy?* > >> Can somebody explain to this dummy why anyone would expect energy would > be conserved on the cosmological scale in

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

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:36:49 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 6:24 AM Philip Thrift > wrote: > > *> Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new >> branched off world requires no new energy?* > > > Can somebody explain to this dummy why

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

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 6:24 AM Philip Thrift wrote: *> Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new > branched off world requires no new energy?* Can somebody explain to this dummy why anyone would expect energy would be conserved on the cosmological scale in a

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

Finding Sabine Hossenfelder there ... David Appell10:49 PM, October 02, 2019 Can't one of you please tell us dummies how creating an entirely new branched off world requires no new energy? None of the enlightened people here has stooped to answer this small but significant question.