many worlds interpretation

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Vasavada, Kashyap V

unread,
May 31, 2017, 12:05:48 PM5/31/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Dear Paul,

If the many worlds interpretation of Everett, Wheeler and Deutsch is verified by experiments, we will have to believe it. But in the meantime, lot of people like me have these issues with it. It is too much vague and metaphysical for interpretation of a physical theory. If the splitting of the universe is real, it is too much arbitrary, caused by human actions. e.g. Suppose a professor asks his graduate  student to do a quantum experiment tomorrow morning: if the student gets up early and does the experiment, the universe splits. If he sleeps late and does not do the experiment the universe does not split!! There are infinite number of branchings  going on at each moment! Multiple copies of all of us are constantly getting created! If the branching is only taking place in observer’s mind, it is even worse metaphysics. Same thing if the multiple copies are made in heavens beforehand,  it is like destiny. Only Hindus will believe in it!!  Apart from this, there are technical problems. As you know, there are problems like, as yet, no one can derive Born rule in the formalism.

So the situation remains unresolved and controversial.

Best regards.

kashyap

Paul Werbos

unread,
May 31, 2017, 3:06:36 PM5/31/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Good afternoon, Kashyap!

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:

Dear Paul,

If the many worlds interpretation of Everett, Wheeler and Deutsch is verified by experiments, we will have to believe it. But in the meantime, lot of people like me have these issues with it. It is too much vague and metaphysical for interpretation of a physical theory.


Everett, Wheeler and Deutsch basically all assume(d) the validity of the Maxwell-Dirac "Schrodinger equation" as a description of the dynamics of how the universe works over time (at the level of QED). But yes, that is not complete. It is ambiguous, by itself. In essence, one must combine that dynamics with a MEASUREMENT formalism in order to have a complete basis for making predictions of experiments. But that is true for all versions of quantum field theory, not just theirs.

Penrose has argued at times that the gross inconsistency between Maxwell-Dirac dynamics and the usual Copenhagen collapse-of-the-wave function measurement formalism is a huge inconsistency, the kind of chasm which might be hiding the true basis of consciousness in its depths. Everett's PhD thesis attempted to derive the Copenhagen measurement formalism as an emergent consequence of Maxwell-Dirac dynamics alone; in other words, he tried to show that Maxwell-Dirac is not incomplete after all, if one derives the implied measurement rules. But in my view, the argument really did not work. 

In my open access paper,
P. Werbos, Bell's Theorem, Many Worlds and Backwards-Time Physics: Not Just a Matter of Interpretation, International Journal of Theoretical Physics (IJTP), Volume 47, Number 11, 2862-2874, DOI: 10.1007/s10773-008-9719-9.

I proposed that the measurement formalism CAN be derived from a combination of Maxwell-Dirac and simple assumptions about the boundary conditions in time which cause measurement to follow the Copenhagen rules in MOST situations in our experience, BUT NOT ALL. I proposed a different form of measurement formalism, consistent with the retrocausal ideas Jack has been trying to get us to think about. I made this more specific in
Werbos, Paul J., and Ludmilla Dolmatova. "Analog quantum computing (AQC) and the need for time-symmetric physics."Quantum Information Processing (2015): 1-15. That is not open access, but the journal allows me to post on my personal web page, www.werbos.com/triphoton.pdf.

There are actually MANY versions of QED used in practical electronics and photonics today, yielding different predictions. (That was a surprise to me, but unavoidable, when I had to oversee research in that area at NSF.)
My paper proposes a new version, MQED, which assumes the same Maxwell-Dirac dynamics but, again, assumes a corrected measurement formalism. Above all, it proposes a clean empirical test, requiring an ability to generate the asymmetric GHz state (which several groups have done in the past); equations 4 and 5 in that paper give the usual predictions, and the predictions based on corrected QED, for that experiment. (Since then I have designed a simpler but messier experiment to prove the same thing, with a clearer demonstration of retrocausality.)

And so, CORRECTED QED (MQED) is not incomplete or ambiguous, as the Maxwell-Dirac dynamics are by themselves. But is it true, as a reasonable approximation to life above 3 femtometers not including gravity?
I consider the logic in these papers to be very compelling, but others might assume the opposite for a variety of reasons. Honesty and science both demand that we not assert personal infallibility, but, instead, do the experiment or find a way to get it done.

MQED is not a pilot wave model. I agree with Jack on the idea that the underlying truth here may well involve a deeper model in which a pilot wave kind of effect plays a central role. MQED may well be just an approximation. But no one will believe either of us on that possibility until and unless the basic experiments are done, experiments which have immediate implications for what is possible in theory when we account for the "EPR" (Bell) experiments.

MQED does manifest Deutsch's many-worlds concept (i.,e. cosmos as Fock-Hilbert space). But even a deeper model has to account for the empirical fact that life at our apparent level of existence (or Maya) 
has to account for parallel co-existing "scenarios" or "worlds" or "possibilities," like the shadows in Plato's cave. TO WHAT DEGREE do our mundane parallel selves really exist at all? Well, we exist to ourselves, but the theory predicts the existence of more real ... phenomena.. minds.. however we put words on it.

Best of luck,

    Paul








 

If the splitting of the universe is real, it is too much arbitrary, caused by human actions. e.g. Suppose a professor asks his graduate  student to do a quantum experiment tomorrow morning: if the student gets up early and does the experiment, the universe splits. If he sleeps late and does not do the experiment the universe does not split!! There are infinite number of branchings  going on at each moment! Multiple copies of all of us are constantly getting created! If the branching is only taking place in observer’s mind, it is even worse metaphysics. Same thing if the multiple copies are made in heavens beforehand,  it is like destiny. Only Hindus will believe in it!!  Apart from this, there are technical problems. As you know, there are problems like, as yet, no one can derive Born rule in the formalism.

So the situation remains unresolved and controversial.

Best regards.

kashyap

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/4e0817b720fd44f695cb1deb4b576d92%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Srikanth R.

unread,
May 31, 2017, 5:51:00 PM5/31/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Profs. Vasavada and Werbos,

I need to get around to reading Prof Werbos' papers here, but I want to comment this about Everett's Many World's Interpretation (MWI): that it doesn't truly derive the Born rule,  unless other assumptions are made, despite attempts by Hartle and others to derive it via the asymptotic properties of the frequency operator. Basically, any attempt to implement this derivation harbors a circularity-- a backdoor entry through which the Born rule is smuggled in. Intuitively, if every superposition possibility is realized, you can pretty much derive any frequency rule you want (or none).

However, alluding to the later part of Prof Werbos' message, I think MWI provides an evocative way to  visualize the operation of Maya, whereby a single primordial Consciousness ( Brahman / Tao ) apparently splits into this multiplicity of our individuated consciousnesses, through a  Maya-driven celestial decoherence process. Like different copies of the observer in different MWI parallel worlds, we seem to be distinct individuals in our normal, waking consciousness. Only in deep sleep or the super-conscious state do we have awareness of this un-individuated, underlying Oneness.

Thanks and regards,
Srik

Good afternoon, Kashyap!
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgfu%2BihK85ftaGR248wZ5%3D26N6ctXfNc_kU0K150KeWyHw%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--


Dr. R. Srikanth
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Theoretical Sciences
Poornaprajna Institute of Scientific Research
Bangalore- 560 080, Karnataka, India.

Vasavada, Kashyap V

unread,
May 31, 2017, 9:02:43 PM5/31/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Dear Srikanth,

I agree completely with the first paragraph about problem of MWI in deriving Born rule. I disagree with the second paragraph though. The idea of multiple copies of your consciousness is interesting. But remember, MWI has these copies at the same time and you (what you think currently as you ) are sitting in one of them. You cannot connect in any way with the other copies of your consciousness! In the Copenhagen interpretation, there is no multiplicity. Each observer each time sees just one thing. But the different observers and same observer at different times  may see different things! This may be related to Maya!! But what is clearly jumping out as a Maya , non-real aspect, is that if you set up an experiment to see particle, you see particle. If you set up an experiment to see wave, you see wave!! Maya is basically false illusion. Particles do not have any properties before you measure. Thus it is purely a subjective matter, not objective! In Copenhagen or Bayesian interpretation, observer’s knowledge changes with each observation. Thus it is economical, rather than proliferation of imaginary worlds as in MWI.  By the way, the ultimate reality (Brahman) may be unreachable by scientific method.

Best Regards

Kashyap

Good afternoon, Kashyap!

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.



 

--

 

Dr. R. Srikanth

Assistant Professor

Dept. of Theoretical Sciences

Poornaprajna Institute of Scientific Research

Bangalore- 560 080, Karnataka, India.

 

--

----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Jun 1, 2017, 9:10:21 AM6/1/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Kashyap,


I prefer to talk in term of a local, branch-dependent, differentiation of consciousness.
Consciousness, or memory differentiation diverges, without any actual splitting of the universe. Then the "many world" is just the literal interpretation of the wave, and this works in any base.

I tend to believe that with the "many-worlds", the Born rule can be derived from Gleason's theorem.

Then we have already all computations and dreams in arithmetic. The assumption that there is an ontologically real physical universe is respectable, but is a metaphysical assumptions, and there are no evidence for it. On the contrary, results in math and physics, seems to me less and less compatible with it.

Best,

Bruno

Srikanth R.

unread,
Jun 1, 2017, 11:42:39 AM6/1/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Prof Vasavada,

I personally don't believe in the Many Worlds Interpretation because-- to repeat myself-- the only potential reason for buying its audacious metaphysical baggage, namely the derivation of Born rule from it, turns out to be provably false. 

I was trying to say that I nevertheless find the underlying math-- the branching of the observer at a measurement event-- evocative of how the one Original Observer (Ishwara / God) branches to become the multiplicity of consciousness that is us. Thus, the multiplicity of branch-correlated observers is not me splitting, but Ishwara / God splitting. I am just the consciousness in one of those splits or branches. 

In this mystic rendering of MWI, the beam splitter is the fundamental act of Creation of souls. Because of decoherence due to the Maya environment, the consciousness in each branch loses its "coherence", i.e., awareness of oneness with that of the consciousnesses of other branches.

This is just a quantum mechanical model for the Vedantic idea of how the one Sun appears as many Suns when reflected in individual pots of water-- the fundamental "polyontogenesis", if you like. This MWI model to me gives a precise mathematical model for visualizing how the One Reality underlies the multiplicity of individual souls, which, without this model, seems to me truly mind boggling. 

Thanks and regards,
Srik

Good afternoon, Kashyap!

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/37115fe3d8984eedb5870cb639d65cb2%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Paul Werbos

unread,
Jun 12, 2017, 2:14:43 PM6/12/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Srikanth R. <sr...@poornaprajna.org> wrote:
Dear Prof Vasavada,

I personally don't believe in the Many Worlds Interpretation because-- to repeat myself-- the only potential reason for buying its audacious metaphysical baggage, namely the derivation of Born rule from it, turns out to be provably false. 


At the end of the day, I too do not agree with Everett, Wheeler and Deutsch that the underlying cosmos is the kind of Fock-Hilbert space assumed by their version of Many Worlds (though we must keep an open mind). Everett's argument that measurement ala collapse of the wave function can be derived as emerging from the "Schrodinger equation" (Maxwell-Dirac dynamics) is not a valid proof at all.

However, is the Born rule itself true? 

It is true that a combination of the usual Maxwell-Dirac dynamics WITH collapse of the wave function (ala Born rule) does give correct predictions for the 
Bell's Theorem experiments, and many standard things which do not involve entanglement at all. But a DIFFERENT measurement formalism, not based on the Born rule, which CAN be deduced from the Maxwell-Dirac dynamics via time-symmetric physics, ALSO gives correct predictions for those same experiments.  The two relevant papers are available on the web:

(1) the open access paper
P. Werbos, Bell's Theorem, Many Worlds and Backwards-Time Physics: Not Just a Matter of Interpretation, International Journal of Theoretical Physics (IJTP), Volume 47, Number 11, 2862-2874, DOI: 10.1007/s10773-008-9719-9.
and

(2) Werbos, Paul J., and Ludmilla Dolmatova. "Analog quantum computing (AQC) and the need for time-symmetric physics."Quantum Information Processing (2015): 1-15. This paper is not open access, but the journal allows me to post on my personal web page,www.werbos.com/triphoton.pdf.

Until one of the two decisive experiments is performed  (the one proposed in the AQC paper, or a simpler more recent proposal), 
the proper posture is avoid too much dogmatism for or against Born. 

Best regards,

   Paul





 

Julia Mossbridge

unread,
Jun 12, 2017, 4:25:18 PM6/12/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Hi Paul,

May I forward your email to a fellow I know who does AQC algorithms and might be interested in doing the relevant experiment? I could introduce you to him if he is open to it.

Thanks for considering it.

Julia

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 

Julia Mossbridge, MA, PhD
Innovation Lab Director, Institute of Noetic Sciences
Science Director, FocusAtWill Labs
Visiting Scholar, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University
Associated Professor, Integral and Transpersonal Psychology, California Institute of Integral Studies

Paul Werbos

unread,
Jun 12, 2017, 4:37:20 PM6/12/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Thanks, Julia!

Please feel free to forward anything I post to this list to anyone you choose. 

Best regards,

      Paul

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

-- 

Julia Mossbridge, MA, PhD
Innovation Lab Director, Institute of Noetic Sciences
Science Director, FocusAtWill Labs
Visiting Scholar, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University
Associated Professor, Integral and Transpersonal Psychology, California Institute of Integral Studies

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/5feee995-3fa0-88b7-ce3e-34aa978b5153%40gmail.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Jun 14, 2017, 7:59:31 AM6/14/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 12 Jun 2017, at 19:52, Paul Werbos wrote:



On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Srikanth R. <sr...@poornaprajna.org> wrote:
Dear Prof Vasavada,

I personally don't believe in the Many Worlds Interpretation because-- to repeat myself-- the only potential reason for buying its audacious metaphysical baggage, namely the derivation of Born rule from it, turns out to be provably false. 


At the end of the day, I too do not agree with Everett, Wheeler and Deutsch that the underlying cosmos is the kind of Fock-Hilbert space assumed by their version of Many Worlds (though we must keep an open mind).

Hmm... Everett gives the view of physics the most consistent with Mechanism. In fact Mechanism force to generalize Everett's embedding of the physicist in the physical reality into an embedding of the mathematicians's dreams in the arithmetical reality. The universal wave becomes itself phenomenological.




Everett's argument that measurement ala collapse of the wave function can be derived as emerging from the "Schrodinger equation" (Maxwell-Dirac dynamics) is not a valid proof at all.

Hmm... I tend to disagree. It seems to me that Gleason theorem do the task, but I agree some work remains to be done.




However, is the Born rule itself true? 

It is true that a combination of the usual Maxwell-Dirac dynamics WITH collapse of the wave function (ala Born rule) does give correct predictions for the 
Bell's Theorem experiments, and many standard things which do not involve entanglement at all. But a DIFFERENT measurement formalism, not based on the Born rule, which CAN be deduced from the Maxwell-Dirac dynamics via time-symmetric physics, ALSO gives correct predictions for those same experiments.  The two relevant papers are available on the web:

(1) the open access paper
P. Werbos, Bell's Theorem, Many Worlds and Backwards-Time Physics: Not Just a Matter of Interpretation, International Journal of Theoretical Physics (IJTP), Volume 47, Number 11, 2862-2874, DOI: 10.1007/s10773-008-9719-9.

Interesting!




and

(2) Werbos, Paul J., and Ludmilla Dolmatova. "Analog quantum computing (AQC) and the need for time-symmetric physics."Quantum Information Processing (2015): 1-15. This paper is not open access, but the journal allows me to post on my personal web page,www.werbos.com/triphoton.pdf.


Mechanism might enforce a time-symmetric physics, or at least a reversible physics. Some results suggest this formally at least. 



Until one of the two decisive experiments is performed  (the one proposed in the AQC paper, or a simpler more recent proposal), 
the proper posture is avoid too much dogmatism for or against Born. 


OK.

Best regards,

Bruno Marchal




--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Srikanth R.

unread,
Jun 15, 2017, 11:51:27 AM6/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Greetings Bruno, Paul !

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 12 Jun 2017, at 19:52, Paul Werbos wrote:



On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Srikanth R. <sr...@poornaprajna.org> wrote:
Dear Prof Vasavada,

I personally don't believe in the Many Worlds Interpretation because-- to repeat myself-- the only potential reason for buying its audacious metaphysical baggage, namely the derivation of Born rule from it, turns out to be provably false. 


At the end of the day, I too do not agree with Everett, Wheeler and Deutsch that the underlying cosmos is the kind of Fock-Hilbert space assumed by their version of Many Worlds (though we must keep an open mind).

Hmm... Everett gives the view of physics the most consistent with Mechanism. In fact Mechanism force to generalize Everett's embedding of the physicist in the physical reality into an embedding of the mathematicians's dreams in the arithmetical reality. The universal wave becomes itself phenomenological.
Everett's argument that measurement ala collapse of the wave function can be derived as emerging from the "Schrodinger equation" (Maxwell-Dirac dynamics) is not a valid proof at all.
Hmm... I tend to disagree. It seems to me that Gleason theorem do the task, but I agree some work remains to be done.

Gleason's theorem  gives us the Born rule, but it's quite non-committal with regard to any particular interpretation, AFAIK. 

Everett's argument, as well as others since, that claim to "derive" Born rule have all been shown to require an additional assumption, among them for example, deriving Born probability based on counting branches in which the universe possesses a given value or another, or based on an "existential measure". 

Having said that,  I like MWI for the mathematical metaphor it provides for visualizing how an undifferentiated, monolithic, primordial Consciousness becomes individuated into this multiplicity of individual selves. So maybe there is a Mechanistic process here...?





However, is the Born rule itself true? 

It is true that a combination of the usual Maxwell-Dirac dynamics WITH collapse of the wave function (ala Born rule) does give correct predictions for the 
Bell's Theorem experiments, and many standard things which do not involve entanglement at all. But a DIFFERENT measurement formalism, not based on the Born rule, which CAN be deduced from the Maxwell-Dirac dynamics via time-symmetric physics, ALSO gives correct predictions for those same experiments.  The two relevant papers are available on the web:

(1) the open access paper
P. Werbos, Bell's Theorem, Many Worlds and Backwards-Time Physics: Not Just a Matter of Interpretation, International Journal of Theoretical Physics (IJTP), Volume 47, Number 11, 2862-2874, DOI: 10.1007/s10773-008-9719-9.

Interesting!




and

(2) Werbos, Paul J., and Ludmilla Dolmatova. "Analog quantum computing (AQC) and the need for time-symmetric physics."Quantum Information Processing (2015): 1-15. This paper is not open access, but the journal allows me to post on my personal web page,www.werbos.com/triphoton.pdf.


Mechanism might enforce a time-symmetric physics, or at least a reversible physics. Some results suggest this formally at least. 

Thank you, Paul, for these references. 

In this connection, I might make bold to remark that we recently published a paper (at this link) disagreeing with the independent claims of two mathematicians from Princeton University and two theorists from ETH, Switzerland, that quantum mechanics can't be extended, i.e., given a deeper explanation in terms of a more explanatory model. The former use a combination of the Kochen-Specker and Bell inequalities, whilst the latter use the chained Bell inequality, to obtain their results, but the essential claim was that any realist model for explaining quantum nonlocal correlations would violate relativity. This observation was used to rule out such extensions, which led them to exclude models like Bohmian and GRW dynamic reduction. Not surprisingly, this was objected to by the Bohmian and GRW researchers, and our result supported this objection.

Thanks and regards,
Srik 
  
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages