Many Worlds and three Inequalities

[John Clark]

There are three different inequalities that are relevant to many worlds. The Bell Inequality discovered in 1964. The Leggett-Garg Inequality discovered in 1985. And the Leggett Inequality discovered in 2003. Quantum Mechanics says all 3 inequalities must be false and experimenters have also found that they are all false, and that tells us something profound about the nature of the world. 

The violation of Bell's Inequality tells us that local realism is false, that is to say either instantaneous action at a distance is possible, or things that have not been measured do NOT exist in one and only one definite state, or things are both non-local and non-realistic. 

The fact that experimenters have found that that the 1983 Leggett-Garg Inequality is also violated places further constraints on how the universe must operate. Bell tests for the interconnectedness of two different systems across space, but Leggett-Garg tests reveal the interconnectedness of the same system across time. So for Legget-Garg the truth or falsehood of locality, a.k.a. "spooky action at a distance", is irrelevant. The Leggett-Garg Inequality is false, so at least one, and possibly both, of the following statements must be wrong:

1) A macroscopic system always possesses one and only one definite unique state regardless of if it has been measured or not.

2) Non-Invasive Measurement is not possible, that is to say a system's state can NOT be probed without disturbing the future evolution of that state. Sometimes this is also referred to as the Clumsiness Axiom.

Those who wish to preserve the idea that there is only one reality, at least for large macroscopic objects, pinned their hopes on the clumsiness axiom being true, they also said because of the Clumsiness Axiom large quantum computers would never be possible because quantum error correction algorithms are not possible. But it turned out that quantum error correction IS possible because the concept of weak measurement was discovered, it's possible to extract a small amount of useful information from a quantum system without destroying all its remaining encoded information. Weak Measurement was used to show that Leggett-Garg Inequality was violated, the fact that weak measurement was used successfully in quantum error correction makes it reasonable to think it could also be used to show that Leggett-Garg is violated.

The Leggett Inequality should not be confused with the Leggett-Garg Inequality, Leggett was involved in both but they test for different things, and experimenters have found that both are violated, as was Bell's Inequality. To summarize: 

Bell's Inequality violation tells us we have to give up either locality and allow instantaneous action at a distance, or give up on reality, the idea that things exist in one and only one definite state even if they have not been measured. Given the fact that experimenters have never found anything that moves faster than the speed of light, much less anything that is instantaneous, most physicists think it makes more sense to keep locality but get rid of reality. 

Leggett-Garg Inequality violation tells us quantum weirdness is not just limited to sub microscopic particles, it applies to microscopic objects too.

Leggett Inequality violation tells us that even if you allow for non-locality (you allow instantaneous communication) you STILL can't have realism, not unless you embrace either Objective Collapse Theory, in which you'd have to give up determinism, or Superdeterminism, in which you'd have to give up Occam's Razor and even the scientific method. I like Many Worlds better than Objective Collapse because I'd rather not give up determinism unless there is a compelling reason to do so, and so far at least there isn't one. As for Superdeterminism, there are an astronomical number, and possibly an infinite number, of ways the Big Bang could've started out in, but just one of them produces a universe in which superdeterminism is true, and that's just too silly to be taken seriously. 

If experimenters had found that even one of those three inequalities, which were developed decades after Hugh Everett came up with his idea, then Many Worlds would've been proven to be wrong, but instead it passed all three tests with flying colors. So much for those who say Many Worlds is not scientific because it is not falsifiable. 

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

bsL

[Alan Grayson]

FYI, other than one exception, I generally respect physicists, even those that affirm there might be multiple worlds. The exception is for those like Sean Carroll who affirm an Everett-type model of many worlds, such as worlds coming into existence whenever someone or something makes a turn at some intersection. Such a proposed model indicates, to me at least, a serious lack of judgement by its advocates. Never can they explain where the energy comes from its creation. I am aware I'm not supposed to consider reasonableness in models of physical reality. I firmly reject that pov in the case of Everett-type models as I understand them. AG

[Quentin Anciaux]

Just see it like this, there are always an infinite number of worlds, they differentiate when you measure something, nothing comes into existence, everything is already there.

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/55bce3b7-5010-4f02-a54b-fc17bbe169d1n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 9:25:43 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Just see it like this, there are always an infinite number of worlds, they differentiate when you measure something, nothing comes into existence, everything is already there.

This isn't the Everett model, or what some "experts" claim IS the Everett model. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG,

This is a common misunderstanding. Everett’s formulation doesn’t claim that worlds are created when measurements happen. All possible outcomes are already contained in the universal wavefunction, which evolves unitarily without adding energy.

The “splitting worlds” language is just a heuristic. As DeWitt clarified:

> “The universe does not actually split. The wavefunction evolves into non-interacting branches.”

No energy is created—unitary evolution conserves it. So your description doesn’t match what Everett proposed.

Quentin 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/251bf5d9-5137-416b-9e87-23bdb188da12n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 10:11:33 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG,

This is a common misunderstanding. Everett’s formulation doesn’t claim that worlds are created when measurements happen. All possible outcomes are already contained in the universal wavefunction, which evolves unitarily without adding energy.

The “splitting worlds” language is just a heuristic. As DeWitt clarified:

> “The universe does not actually split. The wavefunction evolves into non-interacting branches.”

 That doesn't seem to match what Carroll claims. Further, if these worlds exist before I make a turn at a traffic light, did the universe "know" beforehand, that I would make that turn? AG

[Quentin Anciaux]

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

Le jeu. 3 juil. 2025, 18:20, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 10:11:33 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG,

This is a common misunderstanding. Everett’s formulation doesn’t claim that worlds are created when measurements happen. All possible outcomes are already contained in the universal wavefunction, which evolves unitarily without adding energy.

The “splitting worlds” language is just a heuristic. As DeWitt clarified:

> “The universe does not actually split. The wavefunction evolves into non-interacting branches.”

 That doesn't seem to match what Carroll claims.

I do think. you as often misunderstand and don't want to acknowledge your mistakes. 

Further, if these worlds exist before I make a turn at a traffic light, did the universe "know" beforehand, that I would make that turn? AG

You made them all... nothing to know in advance. 

No energy is created—unitary evolution conserves it. So your description doesn’t match what Everett proposed.

Quentin 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

Le jeu. 3 juil. 2025, 18:04, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 9:25:43 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Just see it like this, there are always an infinite number of worlds, they differentiate when you measure something, nothing comes into existence, everything is already there.

This isn't the Everett model, or what some "experts" claim IS the Everett model. AG 

Le jeu. 3 juil. 2025, 15:38, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Sunday, June 29, 2025 at 1:43:54 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

There are three different inequalities that are relevant to many worlds. The Bell Inequality discovered in 1964. The Leggett-Garg Inequality discovered in 1985. And the Leggett Inequality discovered in 2003. Quantum Mechanics says all 3 inequalities must be false and experimenters have also found that they are all false, and that tells us something profound about the nature of the world. 

The violation of Bell's Inequality tells us that local realism is false, that is to say either instantaneous action at a distance is possible, or things that have not been measured do NOT exist in one and only one definite state, or things are both non-local and non-realistic. 

The fact that experimenters have found that that the 1983 Leggett-Garg Inequality is also violated places further constraints on how the universe must operate. Bell tests for the interconnectedness of two different systems across space, but Leggett-Garg tests reveal the interconnectedness of the same system across time. So for Legget-Garg the truth or falsehood of locality, a.k.a. "spooky action at a distance", is irrelevant. The Leggett-Garg Inequality is false, so at least one, and possibly both, of the following statements must be wrong:

1) A macroscopic system always possesses one and only one definite unique state regardless of if it has been measured or not.

2) Non-Invasive Measurement is not possible, that is to say a system's state can NOT be probed without disturbing the future evolution of that state. Sometimes this is also referred to as the Clumsiness Axiom.

Those who wish to preserve the idea that there is only one reality, at least for large macroscopic objects, pinned their hopes on the clumsiness axiom being true, they also said because of the Clumsiness Axiom large quantum computers would never be possible because quantum error correction algorithms are not possible. But it turned out that quantum error correction IS possible because the concept of weak measurement was discovered, it's possible to extract a small amount of useful information from a quantum system without destroying all its remaining encoded information. Weak Measurement was used to show that Leggett-Garg Inequality was violated, the fact that weak measurement was used successfully in quantum error correction makes it reasonable to think it could also be used to show that Leggett-Garg is violated.

The Leggett Inequality should not be confused with the Leggett-Garg Inequality, Leggett was involved in both but they test for different things, and experimenters have found that both are violated, as was Bell's Inequality. To summarize: 

Bell's Inequality violation tells us we have to give up either locality and allow instantaneous action at a distance, or give up on reality, the idea that things exist in one and only one definite state even if they have not been measured. Given the fact that experimenters have never found anything that moves faster than the speed of light, much less anything that is instantaneous, most physicists think it makes more sense to keep locality but get rid of reality. 

Leggett-Garg Inequality violation tells us quantum weirdness is not just limited to sub microscopic particles, it applies to microscopic objects too.

Leggett Inequality violation tells us that even if you allow for non-locality (you allow instantaneous communication) you STILL can't have realism, not unless you embrace either Objective Collapse Theory, in which you'd have to give up determinism, or Superdeterminism, in which you'd have to give up Occam's Razor and even the scientific method. I like Many Worlds better than Objective Collapse because I'd rather not give up determinism unless there is a compelling reason to do so, and so far at least there isn't one. As for Superdeterminism, there are an astronomical number, and possibly an infinite number, of ways the Big Bang could've started out in, but just one of them produces a universe in which superdeterminism is true, and that's just too silly to be taken seriously. 

If experimenters had found that even one of those three inequalities, which were developed decades after Hugh Everett came up with his idea, then Many Worlds would've been proven to be wrong, but instead it passed all three tests with flying colors. So much for those who say Many Worlds is not scientific because it is not falsifiable. 

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

FYI, other than one exception, I generally respect physicists, even those that affirm there might be multiple worlds. The exception is for those like Sean Carroll who affirm an Everett-type model of many worlds, such as worlds coming into existence whenever someone or something makes a turn at some intersection. Such a proposed model indicates, to me at least, a serious lack of judgement by its advocates. Never can they explain where the energy comes from its creation. I am aware I'm not supposed to consider reasonableness in models of physical reality. I firmly reject that pov in the case of Everett-type models as I understand them. 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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4a78b6a2-ede7-4278-bc5f-ba526f18258bn%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 10:23:27 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

Le jeu. 3 juil. 2025, 18:20, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 10:11:33 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG,

This is a common misunderstanding. Everett’s formulation doesn’t claim that worlds are created when measurements happen. All possible outcomes are already contained in the universal wavefunction, which evolves unitarily without adding energy.

The “splitting worlds” language is just a heuristic. As DeWitt clarified:

> “The universe does not actually split. The wavefunction evolves into non-interacting branches.”

 That doesn't seem to match what Carroll claims.

I do think. you as often misunderstand and don't want to acknowledge your mistakes. 

Further, if these worlds exist before I make a turn at a traffic light, did the universe "know" beforehand, that I would make that turn? AG

You made them all... nothing to know in advance. 

Is it possible it is YOU who doesn't understand ths issue? I didn't make those turns, except possibly in the future. Are you now claiming super determism, or just shooting from the hip? AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 10:36:14 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 10:23:27 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

Le jeu. 3 juil. 2025, 18:20, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 10:11:33 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG,

This is a common misunderstanding. Everett’s formulation doesn’t claim that worlds are created when measurements happen. All possible outcomes are already contained in the universal wavefunction, which evolves unitarily without adding energy.

The “splitting worlds” language is just a heuristic. As DeWitt clarified:

> “The universe does not actually split. The wavefunction evolves into non-interacting branches.”

 That doesn't seem to match what Carroll claims.

I do think. you as often misunderstand and don't want to acknowledge your mistakes. 

Further, if these worlds exist before I make a turn at a traffic light, did the universe "know" beforehand, that I would make that turn? AG

You made them all... nothing to know in advance. 

Is it possible it is YOU who doesn't understand ths issue? I didn't make those turns, except possibly in the future. Are you now claiming super determiNism or just shooting from the hip? AG 

You seem to be positing a form of degenerate physics. I am content to cease this communication. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

Le jeu. 3 juil. 2025, 18:36, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 10:23:27 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

Le jeu. 3 juil. 2025, 18:20, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 10:11:33 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG,

This is a common misunderstanding. Everett’s formulation doesn’t claim that worlds are created when measurements happen. All possible outcomes are already contained in the universal wavefunction, which evolves unitarily without adding energy.

The “splitting worlds” language is just a heuristic. As DeWitt clarified:

> “The universe does not actually split. The wavefunction evolves into non-interacting branches.”

 That doesn't seem to match what Carroll claims.

I do think. you as often misunderstand and don't want to acknowledge your mistakes. 

Further, if these worlds exist before I make a turn at a traffic light, did the universe "know" beforehand, that I would make that turn? AG

You made them all... nothing to know in advance. 

Is it possible it is YOU who doesn't understand ths issue? I didn't make those turns, except possibly in the future. Are you now claiming super determism, or just shooting from the hip? AG 

I'm claiming MWI *Many Worlds Interpretation* 🙃

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1362b276-040d-4306-acca-8d1bd6201d2en%40googlegroups.com.

[John Clark]

On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 9:38 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> FYI, other than one exception, I generally respect physicists, even those that affirm there might be multiple worlds. The exception is for those like Sean Carroll who affirm an Everett-type model of many worlds, such as worlds coming into existence whenever someone or something makes a turn at some intersection. Such a proposed model indicates, to me at least, a serious lack of judgement by its advocates.

So it all comes down to the personal incredulity of Alan Grayson. You don't even attempt to use logic or mathematics to refute anything I said, and you ignore the fact that the violation of the Bell, Leggett, and Leggett-Garg Inequality are all screaming that things do NOT exist in one and only one state before they have been measured; you maintain it just can't be true because if it was then things would just be too big, and in comparison you would be too small. It's interesting that personal incredulity was also the reason that for centuries most people didn't believe the stars were objects as bright as the sun and that they only looked dim because they were at  enormous distances, because if it was true then things would be too big and they would be too small.

 

> Never can they explain where the energy comes from its creation. 

I have explained that to you ON THIS VERY LIST a few months ago and as is your custom you did not dispute anything I said but instead you kept silent for a few days and then simply repeated that nobody can explain where the energy comes from.  It's an interesting debate strategy, ask a question, ignore the answer, ask the exact same question again, and repeat until your opponent screams and loses his mind in frustration.  

 > You seem to be positing a form of degenerate physics.

Degenerate physics? Where have I heard that term before?  Oh yes, in Germany during the 1930s whenever the subject of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, or Albert Einstein came up. 

>  I am content to cease this communication. AG

I note that it took exactly 68 minutes for this conversation  to turn from Quinton's polite response to your "degenerate" invective, and I'd say that rate of descent is about typical for you.  

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

4xk

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 11:39:47 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

Le jeu. 3 juil. 2025, 18:36, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 10:23:27 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

Le jeu. 3 juil. 2025, 18:20, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 10:11:33 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG,

This is a common misunderstanding. Everett’s formulation doesn’t claim that worlds are created when measurements happen. All possible outcomes are already contained in the universal wavefunction, which evolves unitarily without adding energy.

The “splitting worlds” language is just a heuristic. As DeWitt clarified:

> “The universe does not actually split. The wavefunction evolves into non-interacting branches.”

 That doesn't seem to match what Carroll claims.

I do think. you as often misunderstand and don't want to acknowledge your mistakes. 

Further, if these worlds exist before I make a turn at a traffic light, did the universe "know" beforehand, that I would make that turn? AG

You made them all... nothing to know in advance. 

Is it possible it is YOU who doesn't understand ths issue? I didn't make those turns, except possibly in the future. Are you now claiming super determism, or just shooting from the hip? AG 

I'm claiming MWI *Many Worlds Interpretation* 🙃

But in your interpretation of the MWI, the univeral WF has information about turns I make, before I make them! This seems like another form of nonsense like the kind that Carroll endorses, with worlds coming into existence, not pre-existing. It all seems ridiculous and degenerate, even though there could be many worlds existing. BTW, I generally don't misunderstand. In our long discussion of the LT, it remains puzzling how length contraction and time dilation can manifest in frames not being observed by the observers in the frame using the LT. I mean, if a muon has a clock, how is its rate effected by an external observer who never directly sees that clock? Saying it's just how Relativity functions is insufficient IMO. AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 11:47:37 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 9:38 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> FYI, other than one exception, I generally respect physicists, even those that affirm there might be multiple worlds. The exception is for those like Sean Carroll who affirm an Everett-type model of many worlds, such as worlds coming into existence whenever someone or something makes a turn at some intersection. Such a proposed model indicates, to me at least, a serious lack of judgement by its advocates.

So it all comes down to the personal incredulity of Alan Grayson. You don't even attempt to use logic or mathematics to refute anything I said, and you ignore the fact that the violation of the Bell, Leggett, and Leggett-Garg Inequality are all screaming that things do NOT exist in one and only one state before they have been measured; you maintain it just can't be true because if it was then things would just be too big, and in comparison you would be too small. It's interesting that personal incredulity was also the reason that for centuries most people didn't believe the stars were objects as bright as the sun and that they only looked dim because they were at  enormous distances, because if it was true then things would be too big and they would be too small.

 

> Never can they explain where the energy comes from its creation. 

I have explained that to you ON THIS VERY LIST a few months ago and as is your custom you did not dispute anything I said but instead you kept silent for a few days and then simply repeated that nobody can explain where the energy comes from.  It's an interesting debate strategy, ask a question, ignore the answer, ask the exact same question again, and repeat until your opponent screams and loses his mind in frustration.  

 > You seem to be positing a form of degenerate physics.

Degenerate physics? Where have I heard that term before?  Oh yes, in Germany during the 1930s whenever the subject of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, or Albert Einstein came up. 

>  I am content to cease this communication. AG

I note that it took exactly 68 minutes for this conversation  to turn from Quinton's polite response to your "degenerate" invective, and I'd say that rate of descent is about typical for you.  

When you learn to read well, say at a high school level, we can have an intelligent discussion. Quentin was hardly polite, and neither were you in our last discussion. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 12:03:37 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 11:47:37 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 9:38 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> FYI, other than one exception, I generally respect physicists, even those that affirm there might be multiple worlds. The exception is for those like Sean Carroll who affirm an Everett-type model of many worlds, such as worlds coming into existence whenever someone or something makes a turn at some intersection. Such a proposed model indicates, to me at least, a serious lack of judgement by its advocates.

So it all comes down to the personal incredulity of Alan Grayson. You don't even attempt to use logic or mathematics to refute anything I said, and you ignore the fact that the violation of the Bell, Leggett, and Leggett-Garg Inequality are all screaming that things do NOT exist in one and only one state before they have been measured; you maintain it just can't be true because if it was then things would just be too big, and in comparison you would be too small. It's interesting that personal incredulity was also the reason that for centuries most people didn't believe the stars were objects as bright as the sun and that they only looked dim because they were at  enormous distances, because if it was true then things would be too big and they would be too small.

Your Everett-type worlds are either pre-existing in the Universal WF, or need energy to come into existence. The former seems non-sensical unless your advocating some kind of super determinism, whereas the latter has never been explained. AG  

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 12:12:43 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 12:03:37 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 11:47:37 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 9:38 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> FYI, other than one exception, I generally respect physicists, even those that affirm there might be multiple worlds. The exception is for those like Sean Carroll who affirm an Everett-type model of many worlds, such as worlds coming into existence whenever someone or something makes a turn at some intersection. Such a proposed model indicates, to me at least, a serious lack of judgement by its advocates.

So it all comes down to the personal incredulity of Alan Grayson. You don't even attempt to use logic or mathematics to refute anything I said,

 

I definitely understand the mathematics and logic that for light speed to be frame invariant, length contraction and time dilation must occur. But I don't see any physical model that allows that to occur, and I don't think Relativity provides that model. AG

 

and you ignore the fact that the violation of the Bell, Leggett, and Leggett-Garg Inequality are all screaming that things do NOT exist in one and only one state before they have been measured; you maintain it just can't be true because if it was then things would just be too big, and in comparison you would be too small. It's interesting that personal incredulity was also the reason that for centuries most people didn't believe the stars were objects as bright as the sun and that they only looked dim because they were at  enormous distances, because if it was true then things would be too big and they would be too small.

Your Everett-type worlds are either pre-existing in the Universal WF, or need energy to come into existence. The former seems non-sensical unless you're advocating some kind of super determinism, whereas the latter has never been explained. AG  

Has anybody ever seen or written down the Universal WF, which contains information of all past, present, and future worlds? That's a reeel tall order! IMO, its existence is in your over-excited imaginations. AG

 

> Never can they explain where the energy comes from its creation. 

I have explained that to you ON THIS VERY LIST a few months ago and as is your custom you did not dispute anything I said but instead you kept silent for a few days and then simply repeated that nobody can explain where the energy comes from.  It's an interesting debate strategy, ask a question, ignore the answer, ask the exact same question again, and repeat until your opponent screams and loses his mind in frustration.  

Your alleged explanation I don't recall. Maybe because you treaded worn out ground about S's equation. Why don't you copy and paste it here for further evaluation? AG 

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/3/2025 2:51 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

I definitely understand the mathematics and logic that for light speed to be frame invariant, length contraction and time dilation must occur. But I don't see any physical model that allows that to occur, and I don't think Relativity provides that model. AG

You seem to have a hang up about "models".  What exactly are you asking for?  A mechanical model of springs and masses like Faraday contrived for EM waves?  Lorentz already derived his contraction by considering atoms as little particles held in place by EM forces?  Isn't that "model" enough for you?

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

I'm not sure exactly what I am seeking, but logic alone leaves much to be desired in the context of Relativity. Lorentz's model is rarely, if ever, mentioned today in any discussion of Relativity, presumably because it's wrong, or doesn't adequately provide an explanation for length contraction, or possibly because logic is seen as sufficient to explain relativistic phenomena (when it does not IMO). As for Quentin's explanation of how many worlds come into being, he says they don't, but are always there, as if those I am supposed to think come into being at some intersection with its numerous different turns possible, were always implicit in the Universal WF, which perfectly knows the future? Quentin thinks this is a reasonable interpretation of the MWI, when IMO it's just untestable imagination. What's your opinion of this latest twist on the MWI, which is supposed to appeal to sober individuals? AG

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG,

In MWI, whether you call it “splitting” or “differentiation” doesn’t really change anything essential. The universal wavefunction by definition contains all possible branches in superposition.

What we call “worlds” are just components becoming effectively independent via decoherence. Nothing extra gets created, everything is always in the wavefunction.

It’s the same formalism either way; the difference is just in how you choose to describe it.

Quentin 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/43010b97-3527-4fe2-9e0a-7d56d5904400n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, July 4, 2025 at 5:48:06 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG,

In MWI, whether you call it “splitting” or “differentiation” doesn’t really change anything essential. The universal wavefunction by definition contains all possible branches in superposition.

What we call “worlds” are just components becoming effectively independent via decoherence. Nothing extra gets created, everything is always in the wavefunction.

It’s the same formalism either way; the difference is just in how you choose to describe it.

Quentin 

So the Universal WF contains information concerning which turn I will make at an intersection before I make the turn? Is this your claim what the MWI contains? AG 

[John Clark]

If someone is a big fan of the law of conservation of mass/energy then he should also be a big fan of Many Worlds. This is because theories that assume measurement induced wave function collapse is real, such as Copenhagen, the expected energy range can change quite significantly. But Many Worlds doesn't have that problem because there is no wave collabs, all outcomes that are allowed by Schrodinger's equation continue and energy remains conserved, globally and exactly. This is because the universal quantum wave function is unitary, it evolves smoothly and no new information is created or destroyed, the total quantum amplitude remains constant but gets divided up among the different outcome branches. In the same way slicing a loaf of bread into thinner and thinner slices does not create more bread. 

And as I've mentioned before, unlike the second law the first law of thermodynamics is not some sacred testament that no physicist dare question.  Classical physics and Special relativity have a clear definition of energy and a conservation law, but  General relativity doesn't even have a global definition of "energy",  much less a conservation law about it.

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

3d7

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 8:09 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So the Universal WF contains information concerning which turn I will make at an intersection before I make the turn?

The universal quantum wave function has information about how you decided to turn left, and information about how you decided to turn right, and information about how you were unable to decide which way was best so you just sat at the intersection until you starved to death; and information about every other thing you could do without violating the laws of physics. 

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

8v2

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, July 4, 2025 at 6:34:29 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 8:09 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So the Universal WF contains information concerning which turn I will make at an intersection before I make the turn?

The universal quantum wave function has information about how you decided to turn left, and information about how you decided to turn right, and information about how you were unable to decide which way was best so you just sat at the intersection until you starved to death; and information about every other thing you could do without violating the laws of physics. 

So, does it have information about what I might or could do in the future, even if I have no idea what some outcomes are?  If so, how could it possibly have such information? If so, is this Super Determinism? AG? AG

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG,

That’s exactly the point: the universal wavefunction contains all possible paths you might take—left, right, or none.

It doesn’t “know” in advance which one you will experience; it simply encodes every alternative in superposition.

That’s why it’s called Many Worlds. Nothing is singled out until decoherence makes the branches effectively independent. There will be as many AG as physically possible (means possible according to the wavefunction)

Quentin 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4241d333-4219-4b08-ae47-025e7c886fa1n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, July 4, 2025 at 6:52:05 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG,

That’s exactly the point: the universal wavefunction contains all possible paths you might take—left, right, or none.

It doesn’t “know” in advance which one you will experience; it simply encodes every alternative in superposition.

That’s why it’s called Many Worlds. Nothing is singled out until decoherence makes the branches effectively independent. There will be as many AG as physically possible (means possible according to the wavefunction)

Quentin 

You seem to mean it encodes future possible outcomes of my choices before I make them. Is this what you believe? If so, how is this possible? AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG,

Yes, in MWI the universal wavefunction encodes all possible outcomes before any choice is experienced.

How? Because quantum mechanics is unitary and deterministic—your “choices” correspond to branches of the wavefunction already present in superposition.

Nothing magical about it: it’s just that the formalism doesn’t select a single outcome. Decoherence then makes each branch effectively independent.

Quentin 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/57d3eccd-4d2b-4a92-9b36-08dbcd3941ben%40googlegroups.com.

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 8:48 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So the Universal WF contains information concerning which turn I will make at an intersection before I make the turn?

The universal quantum wave function has information about how you decided to turn left, and information about how you decided to turn right, and information about how you were unable to decide which way was best so you just sat at the intersection until you starved to death; and information about every other thing you could do without violating the laws of physics. 

> So, does it have information about what I might or could do in the future, even if I have no idea what some outcomes are?  If so, how could it possibly have such information?

Those questions have already been answered more than once, and I flat out refuse to answer them yet again.   

> If so, is this Super Determinism? AG?

No. The Big Bang could've started out in an astronomical number of different states and they all result in you turning left and turning right and being unable to decide where to turn.  But there is only one initial state the Big Bang could've been in that would result in an experimenter always finding that the Bell, Lettett, and the Leggett-Garg Inequality are all violated even though things exist in one and only one definite state even if they have not been measured. 

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

bk8

 

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, July 4, 2025 at 7:04:55 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 8:48 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So the Universal WF contains information concerning which turn I will make at an intersection before I make the turn?

The universal quantum wave function has information about how you decided to turn left, and information about how you decided to turn right, and information about how you were unable to decide which way was best so you just sat at the intersection until you starved to death; and information about every other thing you could do without violating the laws of physics. 

> So, does it have information about what I might or could do in the future, even if I have no idea what some outcomes are?  If so, how could it possibly have such information?

Those questions have already been answered more than once, and I flat out refuse to answer them yet again.   

I suppose I didn't find your arguments convincing, so I fairly promptly forgot them. In the history of physics, or any controversial topic, arguments must be made repeatedly to be finally rejected or accepted. But you don't need to do that, being so sure of yourself. Like I wrote, I don't a-priori reject the hypothesis of many worlds in existence. I just reject Everett's version, which, to the extent I understand it, I find it grossly implausible. I might have a different conclusion if someone could write down this WF, or describe the differential equation which it is solution to. But what I hear just amounts to loose talk about what some people imagine. AG 

> If so, is this Super Determinism? AG?

No. The Big Bang could've started out in an astronomical number of different states and they all result in you turning left and turning right and being unable to decide where to turn.  But there is only one initial state the Big Bang could've been in that would result in an experimenter always finding that the Bell, Lettett, and the Leggett-Garg Inequality are all violated even though things exist in one and only one definite state even if they have not been measured. 

How is this distinguished from Super Determinism? AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

Superdeterminism... only *one* specific history unfold and that one history fools every measurements to conspire against you... MWI read a dictionary about *many* definition.

Quentin 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0871faaa-9e00-4ce9-9401-8d4150ced7e7n%40googlegroups.com.

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 9:23 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If so, is this Super Determinism? AG?

No. The Big Bang could've started out in an astronomical number of different states and they all result in you turning left and turning right and being unable to decide where to turn.  But there is only one initial state the Big Bang could've been in that would result in an experimenter always finding that the Bell, Lettett, and the Leggett-Garg Inequality are all violated even though things exist in one and only one definite state even if they have not been measured. 

How is this distinguished from Super Determinism? AG 

Holy shit!! Do you even bother to read my answers to one of your questions? Apparently not. 

[Alan Grayson]

I read it twice, but see no explicit definition of super determinism. AG

[Alan Grayson]

Without knowing YOUR definition of super determinism, I can't evaluate your comment concerning whether the MWI confirms or disconfirms the concep. AG 

[John Clark]

I suggest an adult  remedial reading course at your local community college, you'll probably need to read this three times to understand what it means. 

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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b7c3b058-9623-450f-99ef-bb135f991976n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, July 4, 2025 at 11:22:35 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 11:26 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, July 4, 2025 at 7:51:54 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 9:23 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If so, is this Super Determinism? AG?

No. The Big Bang could've started out in an astronomical number of different states and they all result in you turning left and turning right and being unable to decide where to turn.  But there is only one initial state the Big Bang could've been in that would result in an experimenter always finding that the Bell, Lettett, and the Leggett-Garg Inequality are all violated even though things exist in one and only one definite state even if they have not been measured. 

How is this distinguished from Super Determinism? AG 

Holy shit!! Do you even bother to read my answers to one of your questions? Apparently not. 

I read it twice, but see no explicit definition of super determinism. AG

I suggest an adult  remedial reading course at your local community college, you'll probably need to read this three times to understand what it means. 

John K Clark

 

You continue to take a dishonorable path, and then blame me for your bad habits. Without knowing YOUR definition of super determinism, I don't see how I can evaluate your comment. AG

[Alan Grayson]

I seriously doubt you are aware of all the assumptions are implicit in your statement, and exactly how they deny super determinism. Translation: your leave much to be desired until you can presume to teach on this topic. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

You are really pathetic. There is only one definition of what superdeterminism is. If you had two working brain cells, you’d first read the answers given to you and, if that’s too hard, use Google or an AI. But apparently that’s too complicated for you, and you’d feel obliged to admit you’re a prick.

Quentin 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c6ff6506-b547-4949-b956-eeaac7560ab7n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, July 4, 2025 at 12:21:24 PM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

You are really pathetic. There is only one definition of what superdeterminism is. If you had two working brain cells, you’d first read the answers given to you and, if that’s too hard, use Google or an AI. But apparently that’s too complicated for you, and you’d feel obliged to admit you’re a prick.

Quentin 

Except for the fact that Clark might have a non-standard definition of super determinism. I need to know HIS definition to proceed intelligently. Why don't you make the effort to understand where I am coming from, before you indulge invective? Further, I don't see how unitary evolution of the wf implies no need for the wf to have access to future information. You might try to explain this if you have the time and interest. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, July 4, 2025 at 12:27:53 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Friday, July 4, 2025 at 12:21:24 PM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

You are really pathetic. There is only one definition of what superdeterminism is. If you had two working brain cells, you’d first read the answers given to you and, if that’s too hard, use Google or an AI. But apparently that’s too complicated for you, and you’d feel obliged to admit you’re a prick.

Quentin 

Except for the fact that Clark might have a non-standard definition of super determinism. I need to know HIS definition to proceed intelligently. Why don't you make the effort to understand where I am coming from, before you indulge invective? Further, I don't see how unitary evolution of the wf implies no need for the wf to have access to future information. You might try to explain this if you have the time and interest. AG 

There are different definitions of super determinism. For example, if you google the term, you'll find Wiki has one definition dependent on reference to Bell experiments, and another more general, that choices related to what experiments are done, are not random even though they might appear to be. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, July 4, 2025 at 12:37:02 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Friday, July 4, 2025 at 12:27:53 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Friday, July 4, 2025 at 12:21:24 PM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

You are really pathetic. There is only one definition of what superdeterminism is. If you had two working brain cells, you’d first read the answers given to you and, if that’s too hard, use Google or an AI. But apparently that’s too complicated for you, and you’d feel obliged to admit you’re a prick.

Quentin 

Except for the fact that Clark might have a non-standard definition of super determinism. I need to know HIS definition to proceed intelligently. Why don't you make the effort to understand where I am coming from, before you indulge invective? Further, I don't see how unitary evolution of the wf implies no need for the wf to have access to future information. You might try to explain this if you have the time and interest. AG 

There are different definitions of super determinism. For example, if you google the term, you'll find Wiki has one definition dependent on reference to Bell experiments, and another more general, that choices related to what experiments are done, are not random even though they might appear to be. AG 

If the universal wf contains information about all future events, this is very close, if not identical to super determinism. But Clark seems to affirm the former and deny the latter. I don't know what this has to do with those three inqualities, although I have no problem with the existence of other worlds. I just don't believe that the Everett-type many worlds is plausible. It seems hugely worse than cancer, the way they metastasize. AG 

[Brent Meeker]

I have sympathy for Quentin's idea.  It's similar to Julian Barbour's; he analogizes a system as a river that gets divided unevenly.  I'm interested in the role of entanglement.  In an experiment the QM evolution before any measurement is isolated so that extraneous entanglements won't affect the experiment.  But then when a measurement is made the system interacts with an instrument that is big enough to be quasi-classical, and that means it's already entangled with a bazillion other particles.  What happens at this interaction?  Does the QM become entangled thru the interaction with the instrument?  

Jacob Barandes has developed a new interpretation of QM which has two advantages.  First, he show's that mathematically it is a stochastic process with a small exception to being Markovian.  So that connects it a lot of literature on stochastic processes.  Second he introduces a phase of measurement in which probabilities of results are determined before they are realized in the post measurement state.  This gets rid of the multiple worlds.

Brent

Brent

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/4/2025 5:20 AM, John Clark wrote:

If someone is a big fan of the law of conservation of mass/energy then he should also be a big fan of Many Worlds. This is because theories that assume measurement induced wave function collapse is real, such as Copenhagen, the expected energy range can change quite significantly. But Many Worlds doesn't have that problem because there is no wave collabs, all outcomes that are allowed by Schrodinger's equation continue and energy remains conserved, globally and exactly. This is because the universal quantum wave function is unitary, it evolves smoothly and no new information is created or destroyed, the total quantum amplitude remains constant but gets divided up among the different outcome branches. In the same way slicing a loaf of bread into thinner and thinner slices does not create more bread. 

Except that would imply the total energy of out slice of "world" has less and less energy.  Yet energy appears to be conserved at the classical level.   Curiously Sean Carroll wrote a paper claiming energy is not conserved in QM and he proposed a possible test.

Brent

And as I've mentioned before, unlike the second law the first law of thermodynamics is not some sacred testament that no physicist dare question.  Classical physics and Special relativity have a clear definition of energy and a conservation law, 

Energy is the variable conserved due to the invariance of physical laws under time-translation; an application of Noether's theorem in classical and SR physics.

Brent

but  General relativity doesn't even have a global definition of "energy",  much less a conservation law about it.

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

3d7

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1aD-_nQk94iSvE--0ZrXBzo%3DjzGKxiG8uqQiJ9fC1a0A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Quentin Anciaux]

One way to see it is that each branch has the same cardinality, the continuum of configurations. What changes is the measure or weight of the branch, not how many elements it contains.

This measure is like a frequency of occurrence, telling you how often you find yourself in a branch compared to others, even though all branches exist equally in number.

Because the total wavefunction stays complete, energy is conserved globally. Slicing it into branches doesn’t create or destroy energy, just like dividing an infinite set doesn’t change its cardinality, and slicing bread doesn’t change the total amount of bread.

The measure acts like an ordering of outcomes by how often they appear, not by how many points the branch has.

Quentin 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5a2e5601-55c4-487f-bb08-dc1848b7bbb6%40gmail.com.

[Quentin Anciaux]

Even if two infinite sets have the same cardinality, you can order them so some elements appear more often at each step.

For example, in one list you have 2, 20, 200, 2000... and in another 20, 202, 2022, 20220... Both sets are infinite, but “2” shows up more frequently in the second ordering.

In MWI, all branches have the same cardinality, but the measure works like this weighting, showing how often each outcome effectively appears.

Quentin 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 3:20 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Energy is the variable conserved due to the invariance of physical laws under time-translation; an application of Noether's theorem in classical and SR physics.

Right, but in curved space-time, like you have in General Relativity, there is no universal way to define gravitational energy density and no universal time translation. 

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

vd8

 

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, July 4, 2025 at 6:52:05 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG,

That’s exactly the point: the universal wavefunction contains all possible paths you might take—left, right, or none.

It doesn’t “know” in advance which one you will experience; it simply encodes every alternative in superposition.

That’s why it’s called Many Worlds. Nothing is singled out until decoherence makes the branches effectively independent. There will be as many AG as physically possible (means possible according to the wavefunction)

Quentin 

Can you write the Universal WF? Much is claimed about it, but I've never seen it. AG

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG,

You can’t write the universal wavefunction in full detail because it’s the total quantum state of the entire universe.

In principle, it’s a giant superposition of all possible configurations evolving deterministically.

Just because we can’t write it out explicitly doesn’t mean it’s not part of the formalism. Even for a modest number of entangled particles, the wavefunction is too big to display, but it still has a precise mathematical definition.

Quentin 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cdefbd3e-1c2f-45af-ab63-ab460e0964b0n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, July 5, 2025 at 10:32:23 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG,

You can’t write the universal wavefunction in full detail because it’s the total quantum state of the entire universe.

In principle, it’s a giant superposition of all possible configurations evolving deterministically.

Just because we can’t write it out explicitly doesn’t mean it’s not part of the formalism. Even for a modest number of entangled particles, the wavefunction is too big to display, but it still has a precise mathematical definition.

Quentin 

If we have hugely limited knowlege of what the "entire universe" is, how can you be sure that the UWF captures the state of the universe. Seems like a huge stretch. You called me a prick, but the determinism you assert for the UWF seems virtually indistinguishable from super determinism, but without direct reference to Bell experiments and the loophole implied.  AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG,

Nobody claims we know the exact universal wavefunction in practice. It’s just the statement that if quantum mechanics applies universally, there is some wavefunction that evolves deterministically.

That’s different from superdeterminism. Superdeterminism says hidden variables conspire to fix outcomes and correlations. MWI doesn’t assume any hidden variables or conspiracies.

It just says all possible outcomes happen in parallel branches. No loophole is needed, because nothing forces only one result to be real.

Quentin 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d258092a-1463-4d78-987d-430d76d92c58n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, July 5, 2025 at 11:57:05 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG,

Nobody claims we know the exact universal wavefunction in practice. It’s just the statement that if quantum mechanics applies universally, there is some wavefunction that evolves deterministically.

That’s different from superdeterminism. Superdeterminism says hidden variables conspire to fix outcomes and correlations. MWI doesn’t assume any hidden variables or conspiracies.

If everything evolves deterministically, then so are the settings in Bell experiments. So it seems there's no difference between super determinism and the belief that everything evolves deterministically. AG 

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG,

The key difference is this:

In superdeterminism, hidden variables set both the outcomes and the measurement settings in a way that conspires to mimic quantum predictions.

In MWI, the settings and outcomes evolve deterministically, but all possible combinations actually happen in different branches. No single hidden-variable script forces the observed correlations.

So there’s no conspiracy to pick just one history, because none is singled out.

That's fundamentally different. 

Quentin 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/114e367b-3153-44ac-b05b-adce7ec76ae7n%40googlegroups.com.

[Brent Meeker]

MWI doesn't assume that the experimenters choices are determined in a way correlated with the results.  MWI is commonly applied to a small system that is isolated except for the measurement.  It doesn't actually describe the measurement anymore than Copenhagen+decoherence does.

Brent

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAqVAzymuzWBZBfhufRXGprCVxYky1XmGesmX_Sk3%3DEfvw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Quentin Anciaux]

With MWI, measurement is just unitary evolution entangling the observer with the system, so no collapse postulate is added.

Copenhagen plus decoherence still requires you to say the wavefunction really collapses to one outcome. MWI just treats the whole process as continuous evolution, with all branches persisting.

Quentin 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ebf19c6c-de0a-479f-ac17-67bdb33c54d7%40gmail.com.

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/5/2025 7:16 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

With MWI, measurement is just unitary evolution entangling the observer with the system, so no collapse postulate is added.

Copenhagen plus decoherence still requires you to say the wavefunction really collapses to one outcome. 

You say that like agreement with experience is a flaw.

MWI just treats the whole process as continuous evolution, with all branches persisting.

I know.  But it still assumes the experimenter is free to choose what measurement he makes...unlike superdeterminism.  So if you really think determinism is important...

Brent

[Quentin Anciaux]

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

Le dim. 6 juil. 2025, 06:43, Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On 7/5/2025 7:16 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

With MWI, measurement is just unitary evolution entangling the observer with the system, so no collapse postulate is added.

Copenhagen plus decoherence still requires you to say the wavefunction really collapses to one outcome. 

You say that like agreement with experience is a flaw.

One and only one history is a flaw imo and I already explained why I have that opinion. 

MWI just treats the whole process as continuous evolution, with all branches persisting.

I know.  But it still assumes the experimenter is free to choose what measurement he makes...

Of course as he makes them all.

unlike superdeterminism.  So if you really think determinism is important...

Then I should follow a non sensical theory? 

In MWI, determinism applies to the whole wavefunction, but freedom of choice still appears inside each branch, without any global conspiracy linking settings to hidden variables. That’s why it isn’t superdeterminism.

Quentin 

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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3ead3f04-b6dc-47da-921a-9ef386b58085%40gmail.com.

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 4:42 PM Quentin Anciaux <allc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Le dim. 6 juil. 2025, 06:43, Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On 7/5/2025 7:16 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

With MWI, measurement is just unitary evolution entangling the observer with the system, so no collapse postulate is added.

Copenhagen plus decoherence still requires you to say the wavefunction really collapses to one outcome. 

You say that like agreement with experience is a flaw.

One and only one history is a flaw imo and I already explained why I have that opinion. 

MWI just treats the whole process as continuous evolution, with all branches persisting.

I know.  But it still assumes the experimenter is free to choose what measurement he makes...

Of course as he makes them all.

But that does not mean that he has freedom within each branch! Making every choice is the same as having no freedom to choose.

unlike superdeterminism.  So if you really think determinism is important...

Then I should follow a non sensical theory? 

In MWI, determinism applies to the whole wavefunction, but freedom of choice still appears inside each branch

That makes no sense. If you have determinism in the whole wave function, you also have it in each branch. So what do you mean by "freedom of choice inside each branch"?

Bruce

[Quentin Anciaux]

Bruce,

I mean that within each branch, the observer experiences making a definite choice and can't predict which branch they will end up in before decoherence.

Globally, all branches are determined, but subjectively each observer sees only one outcome and experiences it as a free choice.

This is similar to how in classical determinism you can still feel free even if everything is fixed in principle, except here all alternatives coexist rather than only one.

Quentin 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQagz1QpwXUdpa-h5k4VNqAnf%3DWVoRiHtiiVMrMc4S-_g%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 12:43 AM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> you really think determinism is important...

Many Worlds is just as important as Schrodinger's equation is and just as deterministic, no more and no less. Unlike Copenhagen, Many Worlds is also fully consistent with Occam's razor, and Superdeterminism is even worse in that regard, much worse.  

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

ml=

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 6:17 PM Quentin Anciaux <allc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruce,

I mean that within each branch, the observer experiences making a definite choice and can't predict which branch they will end up in before decoherence.

You don't get to choose which branch you will be on!

Globally, all branches are determined, but subjectively each observer sees only one outcome and experiences it as a free choice.

This is similar to how in classical determinism you can still feel free even if everything is fixed in principle, except here all alternatives coexist rather than only one.

You have a lot of work to do to show that self-location on branches is the same as compatibilist free-will in a single deterministic universe.

Bruce

[Quentin Anciaux]

Bruce,

Free will in the strict sense is incoherent. If choices are determined, they aren't free, and if they’re random, they aren't willed.

It's just a subjective feeling of agency.

MWI doesn't fix that paradox, it just avoids adding hidden conspiracies to the physics.

Quentin 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRCowOZPdwBK-rdzKFENcQc-iikeoKaTjmtTg5SPurpmw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bruce Kellett]

On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 9:45 PM Quentin Anciaux <allc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruce,

Free will in the strict sense is incoherent. If choices are determined, they aren't free, and if they’re random, they aren't willed.

Self-location in a multiverse is just random, so there is no sense in which you freely choose anything. You still have made no connection with compatibilism in a single deterministic universe.

Bruce

[John Clark]

On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 2:58 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That makes no sense. If you have determinism in the whole wave function, you also have it in each branch.

I don't know what you're driving at. Regardless of which quantum interpretation turns out to be correct and regardless of whether you're talking about the entire Multiverse or just one branch, it remains true that a person either does something for a reason OR HE DOES NOT do it for a reason, and therefore his actions were un-reasonable, AKA random. 

> Making every choice is the same as having no freedom to choose.

Many Worlds says there was a Big Bang starting condition that causes you to perform every action that is consistent with Schrodinger's equation and the laws of physics. Superdeterminism says there was a Big Bang starting condition that causes you to perform every action that is consistent with Schrodinger's equation and the laws of physics EXCEPT for those that would have allowed experimental physicists to demonstrate the true fact that things exist in one and only one definite state even if they have not been measured. Superdeterminism is claiming that Nature, or if you prefer God, is lying to us and therefore the scientific method cannot be trusted. I can't prove that idea is wrong but I can prove that it's silly, in fact it's the ultimate in silliness.

 > So what do you mean by "freedom of choice inside each branch"?

Forget branches, before I can give a really good answer to that question you need to answer a question of my own, what exactly do you mean by "freedom of choice"? Until then all I can say is that neither you nor an adding machine knows what the result of a calculation will be until you or it has finished the calculation, and you can never be certain about what you will do next until you actually do it.  

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

]a.

[John Clark]

On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 7:36 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 6:17 PM Quentin Anciaux <allc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I mean that within each branch, the observer experiences making a definite choice and can't predict which branch they will end up in before decoherence.

> You don't get to choose which branch you will be on!

Isn't that what Quinton just said using different words?  

> You have a lot of work to do to show that self-location on branches is the same as compatibilist free-will in a single deterministic universe.

I have no idea what "free-will", compatibilist or otherwise, means. I've said it before I'll say it again, free-will is an idea so bad it's not even wrong. 

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

8at 

[Quentin Anciaux]

Bruce,

No, not exactly. Compatibilism is just a sentiment.

The idea of free will that is neither determined nor random is simply silly. 

MWI is totally compatible with that. It just doesn't pretend to solve the philosophical problem of free will, because nothing does.

Quentin 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLToxMWjx-A_0Mkn4%3DgMf5f8q6Ex0fXr%2Bh-uF02ShK542g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, July 6, 2025 at 5:54:23 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 2:58 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That makes no sense. If you have determinism in the whole wave function, you also have it in each branch.

I don't know what you're driving at. Regardless of which quantum interpretation turns out to be correct and regardless of whether you're talking about the entire Multiverse or just one branch, it remains true that a person either does something for a reason OR HE DOES NOT do it for a reason, and therefore his actions were un-reasonable, AKA random. 

> Making every choice is the same as having no freedom to choose.

Many Worlds says there was a Big Bang starting condition that causes you to perform every action that is consistent with Schrodinger's equation and the laws of physics. Superdeterminism says there was a Big Bang starting condition that causes you to perform every action that is consistent with Schrodinger's equation and the laws of physics EXCEPT for those that would have allowed experimental physicists to demonstrate the true fact that things exist in one and only one definite state even if they have not been measured. Superdeterminism is claiming that Nature, or if you prefer God, is lying to us and therefore the scientific method cannot be trusted. I can't prove that idea is wrong but I can prove that it's silly, in fact it's the ultimate in silliness.

 

I could swear you're the guy who incessantly claims, that those who have a personal insight that the MWI is "silly", cannot use their personal feelings to affect judgments about interpretations of QM. Aren't you that guy? Silly question. AG

 > So what do you mean by "freedom of choice inside each branch"?

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, July 6, 2025 at 6:48:35 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Sunday, July 6, 2025 at 5:54:23 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 2:58 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That makes no sense. If you have determinism in the whole wave function, you also have it in each branch.

I don't know what you're driving at. Regardless of which quantum interpretation turns out to be correct and regardless of whether you're talking about the entire Multiverse or just one branch, it remains true that a person either does something for a reason OR HE DOES NOT do it for a reason, and therefore his actions were un-reasonable, AKA random. 

> Making every choice is the same as having no freedom to choose.

Many Worlds says there was a Big Bang starting condition that causes you to perform every action that is consistent with Schrodinger's equation and the laws of physics. Superdeterminism says there was a Big Bang starting condition that causes you to perform every action that is consistent with Schrodinger's equation and the laws of physics EXCEPT for those that would have allowed experimental physicists to demonstrate the true fact that things exist in one and only one definite state even if they have not been measured.

How does superdeterminism do that? Serious question. AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, July 6, 2025 at 6:53:51 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Sunday, July 6, 2025 at 6:48:35 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Sunday, July 6, 2025 at 5:54:23 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 2:58 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That makes no sense. If you have determinism in the whole wave function, you also have it in each branch.

I don't know what you're driving at. Regardless of which quantum interpretation turns out to be correct and regardless of whether you're talking about the entire Multiverse or just one branch, it remains true that a person either does something for a reason OR HE DOES NOT do it for a reason, and therefore his actions were un-reasonable, AKA random. 

> Making every choice is the same as having no freedom to choose.

Many Worlds says there was a Big Bang starting condition that causes you to perform every action that is consistent with Schrodinger's equation and the laws of physics. Superdeterminism says there was a Big Bang starting condition that causes you to perform every action that is consistent with Schrodinger's equation and the laws of physics EXCEPT for those that would have allowed experimental physicists to demonstrate the true fact that things exist in one and only one definite state even if they have not been measured.

How does superdeterminism do that? Serious question. AG

Now you seem off, way off the reservation. That is, if I understand your comment, you seem to believe in the "true fact" that an unmeasured system is in one definite state before measurement. But the accepted interpretation of a superposition of states before measurement contradicts this "true fact". AG 

[John Clark]

On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 10:25 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> if I understand your comment, you seem to believe in the "true fact" that an unmeasured system is in one definite state before measurement.

As I've mentioned before, many community colleges offer adult remedial reading courses.

John K Clark 

[Alan Grayson]

ASSHOLE! I can read it and that's what it says. Maybe you should learn to write with more accuracy? AG 

 

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/5/2025 11:42 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

Le dim. 6 juil. 2025, 06:43, Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On 7/5/2025 7:16 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

With MWI, measurement is just unitary evolution entangling the observer with the system, so no collapse postulate is added.

Copenhagen plus decoherence still requires you to say the wavefunction really collapses to one outcome. 

You say that like agreement with experience is a flaw.

One and only one history is a flaw imo and I already explained why I have that opinion. 

MWI just treats the whole process as continuous evolution, with all branches persisting.

I know.  But it still assumes the experimenter is free to choose what measurement he makes...

Of course as he makes them all.

unlike superdeterminism.  So if you really think determinism is important...

Then I should follow a non sensical theory? 

In MWI, determinism applies to the whole wavefunction, but freedom of choice still appears inside each branch, without any global conspiracy linking settings to hidden variables. That’s why it isn’t superdeterminism.

Why would you suppose that determinism applies to everything, but then make an exception for brains.

Brent

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/6/2025 3:44 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 12:43 AM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> you really think determinism is important...

Many Worlds is just as important as Schrodinger's equation is and just as deterministic, no more and no less. 

The question is what does Schroedinger's equation (really QFT) apply to.  Most advocates of MWI just apply it to the future evolution.  Superdeterminist apply it from the beginning of the universe.

Unlike Copenhagen, Many Worlds is also fully consistent with Occam's razor, and Superdeterminism is even worse in that regard, much worse.  

?? It's even more than fully consistent with Occam's razor?

Brent

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

ml=

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1nF2Gojm7SqZRj_gyUoHa_W%3DZML0ndbDNN0BnTvgJL%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/6/2025 4:45 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Bruce,

Free will in the strict sense is incoherent. If choices are determined, they aren't free, and if they’re random, they aren't willed.

It's just a subjective feeling of agency.

You must not have read Daniel Dennett's "Freedom Evolves", or know what compatibilist free will means.

Brent

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/6/2025 4:53 AM, John Clark wrote:

a person either does something for a reason OR HE DOES NOT do it for a reason, and therefore his actions were un-reasonable, AKA random. 

Taking the first alternative, he does it for a reason and therefore his actions were reasonable, aka not random.

Brent

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/6/2025 5:04 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 7:36 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 6:17 PM Quentin Anciaux <allc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I mean that within each branch, the observer experiences making a definite choice and can't predict which branch they will end up in before decoherence.

> You don't get to choose which branch you will be on!

Isn't that what Quinton just said using different words?  

> You have a lot of work to do to show that self-location on branches is the same as compatibilist free-will in a single deterministic universe.

I have no idea what "free-will", compatibilist or otherwise, means. 

Then you should find out before condemning it.  Compatibilist free-will is so called because it's compatible with determinism.  It says you actions are determined by your perceptions, experience, genetics etc. Everything that is encoded in your brain and body, in other words by who you are.  And as Daniel Dennett said that's all the free will worth having.

Brent

I've said it before I'll say it again, free-will is an idea so bad it's not even wrong. 

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

8at 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2m-PGkS4%3DCdu-LLdF08CwBhoWoEwL3NrTdgT07a1BREA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/6/2025 5:22 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Bruce,

No, not exactly. Compatibilism is just a sentiment.

The idea of free will that is neither determined nor random is simply silly. 

Compatibilist free will is deterministic.  That's why it's compatible with physical determinism.

Brent

[Quentin Anciaux]

Brent,

I don't make an exception for brains. In MWI, brains are part of the wavefunction and evolve deterministically like everything else.

The point is just that within each branch, an observer subjectively feels uncertainty and experiences making choices, even though globally all outcomes are included. It's first person indeterminacy.

It is not an exception, it is simply how decoherence divides the universal state into effectively separate histories.

Quentin 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3633b3f9-6208-4cf1-99fe-efe4322294f1%40gmail.com.

[Quentin Anciaux]

I know, and MWI is perfectly compatible with it.

Non-compatibilist free will is silly. Non-random, non-determined will is just bullshit.

Free will is a sentiment, nothing else.

Quentin 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/475aa821-d103-4b84-bcd4-35ade1cc1525%40gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 3:21 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> a person either does something for a reason OR HE DOES NOT do it for a reason, and therefore his actions were un-reasonable, AKA random.

> Taking the first alternative, he does it for a reason and therefore his actions were reasonable, aka not random.

OK, then there was a reason, there was a cause for him doing what he did, and the exact same thing would be true of the little birdie that pops out of a cuckoo clock at certain times.  

>> I have no idea what "free-will", compatibilist or otherwise, means.

> Then you should find out before condemning it. 

Easier said than done! I've been asking people what they mean by "free will" since I was thirteen and I have yet to receive an answer that is both coherent and useful. 

 > Compatibilist free-will is so called because it's compatible with determinism.  It says you actions are determined by your perceptions, experience, genetics etc. 

So saying you have "compatibilist free-will" is just a euphemism for saying you are deterministic. Compatibilists have not changed my opinion that "free will" is best defined as a noise that some people like to make with their mouth, or as the inability to know what the results of a calculation will be until the calculation is finished. Although neither definition is useful, both are at least coherent.

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

5r3

 

[John Clark]

On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 7:53 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Self-location in a multiverse is just random, so there is no sense in which you freely choose anything.

Forget the multiverse, forget self-location, there is no sense in which you "freely choose" ANYTHING. 

> You still have made no connection with compatibilism in a single deterministic universe.

No answer has been given because no question has been asked. Not all sequences of ASCII characters are questions, not even sequences that have a question mark at the end of them.   

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

 

You still have made no connection with compatibilism in a single deterministic universe.

Bruce

It's just a subjective feeling of agency.

MWI doesn't fix that paradox, it just avoids adding hidden conspiracies to the physics.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLToxMWjx-A_0Mkn4%3DgMf5f8q6Ex0fXr%2Bh-uF02ShK542g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bruce Kellett]

On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 9:05 PM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 3:21 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> a person either does something for a reason OR HE DOES NOT do it for a reason, and therefore his actions were un-reasonable, AKA random.

> Taking the first alternative, he does it for a reason and therefore his actions were reasonable, aka not random.

OK, then there was a reason, there was a cause for him doing what he did, and the exact same thing would be true of the little birdie that pops out of a cuckoo clock at certain times.  

>> I have no idea what "free-will", compatibilist or otherwise, means.

> Then you should find out before condemning it. 

Easier said than done! I've been asking people what they mean by "free will" since I was thirteen and I have yet to receive an answer that is both coherent and useful.

So in all that time you have never learnt how to use a Google search on the word "compatibilism"?

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 7:34 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

 >> I've been asking people what they mean by "free will" since I was thirteen and I have yet to receive an answer that is both coherent and useful.

> So in all that time you have never learnt how to use a Google search on the word "compatibilism"?

To humor you I just asked Google about and it said it said compatibilism "suggests that our actions can be both caused by prior events (determinism) and still be considered free". So just as I suspected, that definition is neither coherent nor useful. 

 > Compatibilist free-will is so called because it's compatible with determinism.  It says you actions are determined by your perceptions, experience, genetics etc. 

So saying you have "compatibilist free-will" is just a euphemism for saying you are deterministic. Compatibilists have not changed my opinion that "free will" is best defined as a noise that some people like to make with their mouth, or as the inability to know what the results of a calculation will be until the calculation is finished. Although neither definition is useful, both are at least coherent.

 

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

wb6

qjx

[spudb...@aol.com]

Brand New Result Proving Penrose & Tao's Uncomputability in Physics!

Brand New Result Proving Penrose & Tao's Uncomputability in Physics!

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/7/2025 4:05 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 3:21 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> a person either does something for a reason OR HE DOES NOT do it for a reason, and therefore his actions were un-reasonable, AKA random.

> Taking the first alternative, he does it for a reason and therefore his actions were reasonable, aka not random.

OK, then there was a reason, there was a cause for him doing what he did, and the exact same thing would be true of the little birdie that pops out of a cuckoo clock at certain times.  

>> I have no idea what "free-will", compatibilist or otherwise, means.

> Then you should find out before condemning it. 

Easier said than done! I've been asking people what they mean by "free will" since I was thirteen and I have yet to receive an answer that is both coherent and useful. 

 > Compatibilist free-will is so called because it's compatible with determinism.  It says you actions are determined by your perceptions, experience, genetics etc. 

So saying you have "compatibilist free-will" is just a euphemism for saying you are deterministic. 

It's more that "just" deterministic.  It's the recognition that there is a difference between determined by others thru coercion and determined by ones own experience and genetics as encoded in ones brain.  As Dennett said, "That's all the free will worth having."

Compatibilists have not changed my opinion that "free will" is best defined as a noise that some people like to make with their mouth, or as the inability to know what the results of a calculation will be until the calculation is finished. Although neither definition is useful, both are at least coherent.

You may not like it, but the concept is also important legally in deciding who is responsible for injuries.  So it's not just some philosophical word game.

Brent

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

5r3

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv32zqtQ9HwhNyLGb8zyg%2BL6k4%2Bj8jckx07tVfxpvoSoGg%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 2:22 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> saying you have "compatibilist free-will" is just a euphemism for saying you are deterministic. 

 

> It's more that "just" deterministic.  It's the recognition that there is a difference between determined by others thru coercion and determined by ones own experience and genetics as encoded in ones brain. 

That sounds like plain old determinism to me! And it certainly doesn't change the fact that you did what you did for a reason OR you did NOT do what you did for a reason. You're either a roulette wheel or a cuckoo clock. Are you actually claiming that the compatibilist are saying something profound and are not just mouthing silly platitudes?! 

> You may not like it, but the concept is also important legally in deciding who is responsible for injuries. 

The law in certain places may claim it's important but that doesn't change the fact that free will is incoherent gibberish, it certainly wouldn't be the first legal idea that was.  

> So it's not just some philosophical word game.

Sure sounds like a word game to me and you have provided me no reason to think otherwise.  

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

6r8

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/7/2025 12:06 PM, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 2:22 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> saying you have "compatibilist free-will" is just a euphemism for saying you are deterministic. 

 

> It's more that "just" deterministic.  It's the recognition that there is a difference between determined by others thru coercion and determined by ones own experience and genetics as encoded in ones brain. 

That sounds like plain old determinism to me! 

How many times need I explain that it is compatible with "plain old determinism", it's right in the name "compatibilism"?

And it certainly doesn't change the fact that you did what you did for a reason OR you did NOT do what you did for a reason. You're either a roulette wheel or a cuckoo clock. Are you actually claiming that the compatibilist are saying something profound and are not just mouthing silly platitudes?! 

Are there no categories in your mind between "profound" and "silly platitude"?  Compatibilism explains why "free will", as some property you have, is compatible with determinism.  Something that was long contentious among philosophers.  That's the third time I've explained what compatiblism to you.  So I don't see why you keep asking what I am claiming.  I'm just claiming that I have written what compatibilism means and it is compatible but not identical with just determinism.

> You may not like it, but the concept is also important legally in deciding who is responsible for injuries. 

The law in certain places may claim it's important but that doesn't change the fact that free will is incoherent gibberish, it certainly wouldn't be the first legal idea that was.  

> So it's not just some philosophical word game.

Sure sounds like a word game to me and you have provided me no reason to think otherwise.  

Maybe when you're a defendant in a car accident lawsuit you'll find the reason to think otherwise.  There's an old joke in which the defendant says "All our actions are determined, your honor, so I can't be held responsible."

The judge replies, "In that case it is determined that my action is to sentence you to 18mo in the county jail."

Brent

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

6r8

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv10f1HfgzbeevW0ypjTkVQLwXrn4Vd2S-7Lmnhq7s4eTQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 3:57 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> That sounds like plain old determinism to me! 

 

> How many times need I explain that it is compatible with "plain old determinism",

42.

 

> it's right in the name "compatibilism"?

So what exactly does the word "compatibilism" add that the word "determinism" by itself lax? What is the difference between "free will" and "compatibilist free will"? I see no difference except that one is a slightly more verbose form of gibberish than the other. 

>> And it certainly doesn't change the fact that you did what you did for a reason OR you did NOT do what you did for a reason. You're either a roulette wheel or a cuckoo clock. Are you actually claiming that the compatibilist are saying something profound and are not just mouthing silly platitudes?! 

> Are there no categories in your mind between "profound" and "silly platitude"? 

Actually I was being too kind in calling free will a platitude because  a platitude is a coherent statement and it might even be true, but "free will" is nothing but gibberish, and the word "compatibilism" cannot magically change that sorry state of affairs.

 

> Compatibilism explains why "free will", as some property you have, is compatible with determinism. 

I heard no such explanation, all I heard was you claiming that there was an explanation but you never specified what that explanation was, nor has anybody else.  

 

  > That's the third time I've explained what compatiblism to you. 

No, that's probably the fifth time you've claimed there is an explanation, but you've never said what that explanation is. You just say it's different, you don't say why it's different.  

 

 > I'm just claiming that I have written what compatibilism means

Nope. You have done no such thing.  

 > There's an old joke in which the defendant says "All our actions are determined, your honor, so I can't be held responsible.The judge replies, "In that case it is determined that my action is to sentence you to 18mo in the county jail."

That's not a joke, that makes perfect sense! If you are chasing me with a bloody ax I don't care if you're doing it because you were unluckily enough to have inherited bad genes, or because you were unlucky enough to have had a bad childhood, or because you were unlucky enough to be hit by a high energy cosmic ray that destroyed some neurons in your brain, all I care about is that you stop and that law enforcement makes sure that you never do something like that again. If all your actions are determined then you are ALWAYS responsible for your actions.    

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

wdd

[Brent Meeker]

So if, while running from the ax murderer, you accidentally knock a pedestrian into the street where they are run over and killed, you are responsible for their death.  

Brent

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

wdd

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0iZgw-j9sbRQ2VTwpBkbNmyQqE%3DvNgv61jk2_Vtoj-mw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/7/2025 1:41 PM, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 3:57 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> That sounds like plain old determinism to me! 

 

> How many times need I explain that it is compatible with "plain old determinism",

42.

It's more that "just" deterministic.  It's the recognition that there is a difference between determined by others thru coercion and determined by ones own experience and genetics as encoded in ones brain. 

 

> it's right in the name "compatibilism"?

So what exactly does the word "compatibilism" add that the word "determinism" by itself lax? What is the difference between "free will" and "compatibilist free will"? I see no difference except that one is a slightly more verbose form of gibberish than the other. 

Compatibilism holds that in the absence of coercion your exercise of will is determined by your experience, perceptions, and genetics (all stuff that' insider your skin) and this is what makes it "free".  It's not free in the sense of undetermined, but it's free of coercion. 

>> And it certainly doesn't change the fact that you did what you did for a reason OR you did NOT do what you did for a reason. You're either a roulette wheel or a cuckoo clock. Are you actually claiming that the compatibilist are saying something profound and are not just mouthing silly platitudes?! 

> Are there no categories in your mind between "profound" and "silly platitude"? 

Actually I was being too kind in calling free will a platitude because  a platitude is a coherent statement and it might even be true, but "free will" is nothing but gibberish, and the word "compatibilism" cannot magically change that sorry state of affairs.

 

> Compatibilism explains why "free will", as some property you have, is compatible with determinism. 

I heard no such explanation, all I heard was you claiming that there was an explanation but you never specified what that explanation was, nor has anybody else.  

 

  > That's the third time I've explained what compatiblism to you. 

No, that's probably the fifth time you've claimed there is an explanation, but you've never said what that explanation is. You just say it's different, you don't say why it's different.  

Compatibilist free-will is so called because it's compatible with determinism.  It says you actions are determined by your perceptions, experience, genetics etc. Everything that is encoded in your brain and body, in other words by who you are.  And as Daniel Dennett said that's all the free will worth having. 

It's more that "just" deterministic.  It's the recognition that there is a difference between determined by others thru coercion and determined by ones own experience and genetics as encoded in ones brain. 

Compatibilism holds that in the absence of coercion your exercise of will is determined by your experience, perceptions, and genetics (all stuff that' insider your skin) and this is what makes it "free".  It's not free in the sense of undetermined, but it's free of coercion. 

 

 > I'm just claiming that I have written what compatibilism means

Nope. You have done no such thing. 

See above.

 

 > There's an old joke in which the defendant says "All our actions are determined, your honor, so I can't be held responsible.The judge replies, "In that case it is determined that my action is to sentence you to 18mo in the county jail."

That's not a joke, that makes perfect sense! If you are chasing me with a bloody ax I don't care if you're doing it because you were unluckily enough to have inherited bad genes, or because you were unlucky enough to have had a bad childhood, or because you were unlucky enough to be hit by a high energy cosmic ray that destroyed some neurons in your brain, all I care about is that you stop and that law enforcement makes sure that you never do something like that again. If all your actions are determined then you are ALWAYS responsible for your actions.  

Even when your action is coerced, e.g. Robbers hold your family at gun point to coerce you into cleaning out the till for them where you work?  Or a child runs in front of your car and you swerve, smashing up a parked car which you are now responsible for?

Brent

  

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

wdd

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0iZgw-j9sbRQ2VTwpBkbNmyQqE%3DvNgv61jk2_Vtoj-mw%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 6:16 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>  It's the recognition that there is a difference between determined by others thru coercion and determined by ones own experience

OK, but coercion by others is part of one's experience. So what is the difference?  

 

> Compatibilism holds that in the absence of coercion your exercise of will is determined by your experience,

And in the PRESENCE  of coercion the exercise of your will is STILL determined by your experience. So what is the difference? 

 

 > It's not free in the sense of undetermined, but it's free of coercion. 

Coercion is just something that stops me from doing what I would otherwise want to do. I want to walk straight ahead but my perception that there is a brick wall straight in front of me prevents me from trying to do that. I want to jump over a mountain but the law of gravity prevents me from doing that. Nothing you have said makes free will one bit less dumb.   

> Compatibilist free-will is so called because it's compatible with determinism. 

So you keep saying, but you've given me no reason to think that what you keep saying is true.   

 

> It says you actions are determined by your perceptions, experience, genetics etc.

A keen grasp of the obvious, but free will is still an idea so bad it's not even wrong. 

>>If you are chasing me with a If all your actions are determined then you are ALWAYS responsible for your actions.  

 

> Even when your action is coerced, e.g. Robbers hold your family at gun point to coerce you into cleaning out the till for them where you work? 

Yes. I want law enforcement to make sure those robbers never again hold somebody else's family at gunpoint, passing a few amps through their bodies for a few seconds should do the trick. And I don't give a damn if those robbers had bad genes or grew up in bad environments. 

 > Or a child runs in front of your car and you swerve, smashing up a parked car which you are now responsible for?

In that case your quick reflex was responsible for saving a child's life, and you should receive praise for that even though it only happened because you were lucky enough to inherit especially quick reflex genes. Albert Einstein was lucky enough to inherit genes that made him a genius, that certainly doesn't prevent me from admiring him. 

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

e11

[Bruce Kellett]

On Tue, Jul 8, 2025 at 6:42 AM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 3:57 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Compatibilism explains why "free will", as some property you have, is compatible with determinism. 

I heard no such explanation, all I heard was you claiming that there was an explanation but you never specified what that explanation was, nor has anybody else.

Perhaps you should read some of the articles on the links thrown up by your search on the word "compatibilism".

Bruce

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/7/2025 4:09 PM, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 6:16 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>  It's the recognition that there is a difference between determined by others thru coercion and determined by ones own experience

OK, but coercion by others is part of one's experience. So what is the difference?  

One is external and due to someone else's will and the other is internal and an expression of your will.

 

> Compatibilism holds that in the absence of coercion your exercise of will is determined by your experience,

And in the PRESENCE  of coercion the exercise of your will is STILL determined by your experience. So what is the difference? 

And it's determined by you blood pressure too.  I name three things and you cut off two of them and complain that the remaining one isn't sufficiently discriminatory.

 

 > It's not free in the sense of undetermined, but it's free of coercion. 

Coercion is just something that stops me from doing what I would otherwise want to do. I want to walk straight ahead but my perception that there is a brick wall straight in front of me prevents me from trying to do that. I want to jump over a mountain but the law of gravity prevents me from doing that. Nothing you have said makes free will one bit less dumb.  

OK forget it.  If you can't tell coercion from a brick wall I can't help you.  Your sophistry is impenetrable.

Brent

[Stathis Papaioannou]

Stathis Papaioannou

On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 at 22:08, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 7:34 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

 >> I've been asking people what they mean by "free will" since I was thirteen and I have yet to receive an answer that is both coherent and useful.

> So in all that time you have never learnt how to use a Google search on the word "compatibilism"?

To humor you I just asked Google about and it said it said compatibilism "suggests that our actions can be both caused by prior events (determinism) and still be considered free". So just as I suspected, that definition is neither coherent nor useful. 

The word “free” is not incoherent. I’m sure you understand what people mean when they use it in everyday conversation.

 > Compatibilist free-will is so called because it's compatible with determinism.  It says you actions are determined by your perceptions, experience, genetics etc. 

So saying you have "compatibilist free-will" is just a euphemism for saying you are deterministic. Compatibilists have not changed my opinion that "free will" is best defined as a noise that some people like to make with their mouth, or as the inability to know what the results of a calculation will be until the calculation is finished. Although neither definition is useful, both are at least coherent.

 

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

wb6

qjx

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv09E-2EH28-WrD7YeSMQsn1hjFMOgugS9abODYP%2Bhvv1Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/7/2025 10:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

Stathis Papaioannou

On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 at 22:08, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 7:34 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

 >> I've been asking people what they mean by "free will" since I was thirteen and I have yet to receive an answer that is both coherent and useful.

> So in all that time you have never learnt how to use a Google search on the word "compatibilism"?

To humor you I just asked Google about and it said it said compatibilism "suggests that our actions can be both caused by prior events (determinism) and still be considered free". So just as I suspected, that definition is neither coherent nor useful. 

It's perfectly coherent.  Actions that are determined by one's brain making a choice that is not coerce can be considered free (free of coercion) and yet still determined by your internal state.

The word “free” is not incoherent. I’m sure you understand what people mean when they use it in everyday conversation.

 > Compatibilist free-will is so called because it's compatible with determinism.  It says you actions are determined by your perceptions, experience, genetics etc. 

So saying you have "compatibilist free-will" is just a euphemism for saying you are deterministic. 

It says when you act out of your own motivations that act is free of coercion.  Which is a subset of all your actions; some of them may be coerced and so not free.

Compatibilists have not changed my opinion that "free will" is best defined as a noise that some people like to make with their mouth, or as the inability to know what the results of a calculation will be until the calculation is finished. Although neither definition is useful, both are at least coherent.

What does the inability to know the result of a calculation before it is finished have to do with wilful acts.

Brent

 

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

wb6

qjx

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv09E-2EH28-WrD7YeSMQsn1hjFMOgugS9abODYP%2Bhvv1Q%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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypU_E2xK8WMBR7sOMC8y4C3_oX%3DDXz6Z2wQuxt-%3D%3D3Y3CA%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 9:12 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

 >> coercion by others is part of one's experience. So what is the difference?  

 

> One is external and due to someone else's will

Somebody else's will, or somebody else's free will, or somebody else's compatiblist free will? How can I tell the difference?  And if you refuse to do what somebody wants you to do, if you cause their wish to remain unfulfilled, does that mean you are also engaging in coercion? 

 

>> And in the PRESENCE  of coercion the exercise of your will is STILL determined by your experience. So what is the difference? 

> And it's determined by you blood pressure too.

Exactly. The entire idea of "free will" is vacuous, and sticking on the word "compatiblist" is of no help whatsoever. 

>> Coercion is just something that stops me from doing what I would otherwise want to do. I want to walk straight ahead but my perception that there is a brick wall straight in front of me prevents me from trying to do that. I want to jump over a mountain but the law of gravity prevents me from doing that. Nothing you have said makes free will one bit less dumb.  

 

> OK forget it.  If you can't tell coercion from a brick wall I can't help you.  Your sophistry is impenetrable.

The word "sophistry" is only used if one cannot think of a logical rebuttal to what somebody else is saying.   

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

7gq 

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 at 20:32, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 9:12 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

 >> coercion by others is part of one's experience. So what is the difference?  

 

> One is external and due to someone else's will

Somebody else's will, or somebody else's free will, or somebody else's compatiblist free will? How can I tell the difference?  And if you refuse to do what somebody wants you to do, if you cause their wish to remain unfulfilled, does that mean you are also engaging in coercion? 

 

>> And in the PRESENCE  of coercion the exercise of your will is STILL determined by your experience. So what is the difference? 

> And it's determined by you blood pressure too.

Exactly. The entire idea of "free will" is vacuous, and sticking on the word "compatiblist" is of no help whatsoever. 

 

The compatibilist position is that free will is what people with no interest in philosophy mean when they say "he did it of his own free will", and that the libertarian position is due to a misconception.

>> Coercion is just something that stops me from doing what I would otherwise want to do. I want to walk straight ahead but my perception that there is a brick wall straight in front of me prevents me from trying to do that. I want to jump over a mountain but the law of gravity prevents me from doing that. Nothing you have said makes free will one bit less dumb.  

 

> OK forget it.  If you can't tell coercion from a brick wall I can't help you.  Your sophistry is impenetrable.

The word "sophistry" is only used if one cannot think of a logical rebuttal to what somebody else is saying.   

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

7gq 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1%2BSdZrmDGp0W2kUDgD2EoQqPB9xNQ_KXG4WNkJ%3D3tfXQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Stathis Papaioannou

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jul 8, 2025 at 1:47 AM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> So in all that time you have never learnt how to use a Google search on the word "compatibilism"?

 

>> To humor you I just asked Google about and it said it said compatibilism "suggests that our actions can be both caused by prior events (determinism) and still be considered free". So just as I suspected, that definition is neither coherent nor useful. 

 

> It's perfectly coherent. 

Perfectly?  

> Actions that are determined by one's brain making a choice

 

Your brain made that choice for a reason and was therefore deterministicm OR your brain made that choice for no reason whatsoever and was therefore random.  What room does that leave for this "free will" business? 

 

> that is not coerce can be considered free (free of coercion)

None of your actions are entirely free of coercion, that's why you can't always do what you want, like walk through walls or jump over a mountain. 

 

>The word “free” is not incoherent. I’m sure you understand what people mean when they use it in everyday conversation.

Sure, and if I'm building a dog house I don't need to take General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics into account. When discussing philosophy one needs to be much more careful than you are in everyday conversation because there are things that are taken for granted and cause no problems in common usage that can hide a philosophical minefield. 

>> Compatibilists have not changed my opinion that "free will" is best defined as a noise that some people like to make with their mouth, or as the inability to know what the results of a calculation will be until the calculation is finished. Although neither definition is useful, both are at least coherent.

> What does the inability to know the result of a calculation before it is finished have to do with wilful acts.

I'm very surprised you would ask such a question. I thought you knew that all actions, wilful or otherwise, can be simulated by a calculation made by a Turing Machine.   

[Bruce Kellett]

Maybe that's how you use the word, but others, who are more experienced in philosophy and in the real business of living, use it to mean that the point being made by the opponent is incoherent or fatuous, and that the opposing argument is specious.

Bruce

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jul 8, 2025 at 7:34 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> The word "sophistry" is only used if one cannot think of a logical rebuttal to what somebody else is saying.

> Maybe that's how you use the word, but others, who are more experienced in philosophy and in the real business of living, use it to mean that the point being made by the opponent is incoherent or fatuous, and that the opposing argument is specious.

Then it's surprising that instead of pinpointing exactly where the opponent's argument is incoherent or fatuous or specious the word "sophistry" is just slapped on.

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

ecq

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, July 5, 2025 at 10:32:23 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG,

You can’t write the universal wavefunction in full detail because it’s the total quantum state of the entire universe.

In principle, it’s a giant superposition of all possible configurations evolving deterministically.

Just because we can’t write it out explicitly doesn’t mean it’s not part of the formalism. Even for a modest number of entangled particles, the wavefunction is too big to display, but it still has a precise mathematical definition.

Quentin 

If all events are determined in advance by the UWF, this implies that the settings of both experimenters in Bell experiments are also predetermined. Isn't the condition for the validity of Bell experiments is that the settings are random? How is this different from superdeterminism? AG 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

Le sam. 5 juil. 2025, 18:09, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Friday, July 4, 2025 at 6:52:05 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG,

That’s exactly the point: the universal wavefunction contains all possible paths you might take—left, right, or none.

It doesn’t “know” in advance which one you will experience; it simply encodes every alternative in superposition.

That’s why it’s called Many Worlds. Nothing is singled out until decoherence makes the branches effectively independent. There will be as many AG as physically possible (means possible according to the wavefunction)

Quentin 

Can you write the Universal WF? Much is claimed about it, but I've never seen it. AG

 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

Le ven. 4 juil. 2025, 14:09, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Friday, July 4, 2025 at 5:48:06 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

AG,

In MWI, whether you call it “splitting” or “differentiation” doesn’t really change anything essential. The universal wavefunction by definition contains all possible branches in superposition.

What we call “worlds” are just components becoming effectively independent via decoherence. Nothing extra gets created, everything is always in the wavefunction.

It’s the same formalism either way; the difference is just in how you choose to describe it.

Quentin 

So the Universal WF contains information concerning which turn I will make at an intersection before I make the turn? Is this your claim what the MWI contains? AG 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

Le ven. 4 juil. 2025, 12:52, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 7:38:03 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 7/3/2025 2:51 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

I definitely understand the mathematics and logic that for light speed to be frame invariant, length contraction and time dilation must occur. But I don't see any physical model that allows that to occur, and I don't think Relativity provides that model. AG

You seem to have a hang up about "models".  What exactly are you asking for?  A mechanical model of springs and masses like Faraday contrived for EM waves?  Lorentz already derived his contraction by considering atoms as little particles held in place by EM forces?  Isn't that "model" enough for you?

Brent

I'm not sure exactly what I am seeking, but logic alone leaves much to be desired in the context of Relativity. Lorentz's model is rarely, if ever, mentioned today in any discussion of Relativity, presumably because it's wrong, or doesn't adequately provide an explanation for length contraction, or possibly because logic is seen as sufficient to explain relativistic phenomena (when it does not IMO). As for Quentin's explanation of how many worlds come into being, he says they don't, but are always there, as if those I am supposed to think come into being at some intersection with its numerous different turns possible, were always implicit in the Universal WF, which perfectly knows the future? Quentin thinks this is a reasonable interpretation of the MWI, when IMO it's just untestable imagination. What's your opinion of this latest twist on the MWI, which is supposed to appeal to sober individuals? AG

[Quentin Anciaux]

AG,

The key difference is that in MWI, all possible settings and outcomes actually happen in different branches. Nothing selects just one in advance.

So yes, everything evolves deterministically, including the experimenters, but there's no global constraint forcing a single outcome to match hidden variables.

In superdeterminism, only one setting and one outcome ever happen, and they're pre-correlated to fake the quantum violation.

MWI doesn't need that. It just lets every allowed outcome unfold, no conspiracy required.

Quentin 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/eab01bb4-66f7-4fb4-8c75-9515696b1cc5n%40googlegroups.com.

[Bruce Kellett]

On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 3:42 AM Quentin Anciaux <allc...@gmail.com> wrote:

AG,

The key difference is that in MWI, all possible settings and outcomes actually happen in different branches. Nothing selects just one in advance.

So yes, everything evolves deterministically, including the experimenters, but there's no global constraint forcing a single outcome to match hidden variables.

In superdeterminism, only one setting and one outcome ever happen, and they're pre-correlated to fake the quantum violation.

MWI doesn't need that. It just lets every allowed outcome unfold, no conspiracy required.

But MWI still can't account for correlations that violate the Bell inequalities.

Bruce