> "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a failure of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both.
I’m afraid I made a serious mistake in this previous posting discussing Sean Carroll’s new book. Since the book was relatively reasonable, while the jacket and promotional material that came with it were nonsense, I assumed that Carroll was just being ill-served by his publisher. It’s now clear I was very wrong. He’s on a book tour, and the nonsense is exactly what he is putting front and center as a revelation to the public about how to understand quantum mechanics. For a couple examples, here’s what was on the PBS News Hour
The “many worlds” theory in quantum mechanics suggests that with every decision you make, a new universe springs into existence containing what amounts to a new version of you. Bestselling author and theoretical physicist Sean Carroll discusses the concept and his new book, “Something Deeply Hidden,” with NewsHour Weekend’s Tom Casciato.
and here’s something from his talk down the street from me.
Using your public platform to tell people that the way to understand quantum mechanics is that the world splits depending on what you decide to do is simply What the Bleep? level stupidity. Those in the physics and science communication communities who care about the public understanding of quantum mechanics should think hard about what they can do to deal with this situation. They may however come to the same conclusion I’ve just reached: best to ignore him, which I’ll try to do from now on.
Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with any humanly devised equation."Bruce
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 5:58:58 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:49 AM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a failure of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both.
And I think the above demonstrates a lack of courage to face the possibility that reality may be structured in ways you do not like. As Carl Sagan said "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition".
John K Clark
When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM and Relativity, people when overboard. Now any patently absurd result finds its justification among true believers. So what happened to the (non-covariant)
> When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM and Relativity, people when overboard. Now any patently absurd result finds its justification among true believers.
> So what happened to the (non-covariant) wf after the measurement? Nothing.
> Like a horserace when it reaches conclusion, it's no longer applicable. That simple! The collapse hypothesis is just a bookkeeping device to get rid of it!
So, if we develop AI to come up with new, better, equations, this would be good with you, because, non-human?
Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with any humanly devised equation."Bruce
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:22 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM and Relativity, people when overboard. Now any patently absurd result finds its justification among true believers.And in this context "patently absurd" means odd, not logically contradictory not paradoxical not contrary to experimental results, just odd. But as far as we know there is no law that says nature can't behave in ways that humans find odd.
> So what happened to the (non-covariant) wf after the measurement? Nothing.True, and that's what Many Worlds says, nothing happens to the Schrödinger wave of the universe described by his equation, it just keeps on going forever.
> Like a horserace when it reaches conclusion, it's no longer applicable. That simple! The collapse hypothesis is just a bookkeeping device to get rid of it!
True again, the collapse hypothesis was tacked on not because it explained observations better but because some people didn't like those many worlds, so they just said some mysterious process makes them disappear even though they can't clearly explain how this process does this or explain exactly what circumstances are needed for it to take effect. In Sean Carroll's new book, which I just started reading, he says Many Worlds could be called Austere Quantum Mechanics because it adds nothing to Schrödinger's Equation because nothing more is needed to explain observations.
It would be (will be?) interesting when we achieve this. Serious, academic bench computer scientists are actively working on variations of machine intelligence to make this happen, money to be made. Are you stating that making a hyper-smart machine is impossible?
Are you a spiritualist? A Cartesian dualist imputing a magic substance? :-)
Agnostic, Mind-Brain thing is good with me. According to a brief article, some theorists have mused about consciousness in the absence of matter. Check it out. It will either be a good laugh for you, but once in a while, the 'lofty' stuff works for me.
Yeah, but despite Chopra there was Linde is seems to be a reliable. physicist. Also, the dismissive crap performed by number crunchers, dismiss it because it merely offends their sense of...conventionality. Outside of Bruno, and Young, Standish, nobody else here is employed as an academician is there?
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:22 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:> When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM and Relativity, people when overboard. Now any patently absurd result finds its justification among true believers.And in this context "patently absurd" means odd, not logically contradictory not paradoxical not contrary to experimental results, just odd. But as far as we know there is no law that says nature can't behave in ways that humans find odd.
> So what happened to the (non-covariant) wf after the measurement? Nothing.True, and that's what Many Worlds says, nothing happens to the Schrödinger wave of the universe described by his equation, it just keeps on going forever.
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 3:54:46 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:22 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:> When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM and Relativity, people when overboard. Now any patently absurd result finds its justification among true believers.And in this context "patently absurd" means odd, not logically contradictory not paradoxical not contrary to experimental results, just odd. But as far as we know there is no law that says nature can't behave in ways that humans find odd.Many "odd" results are now mainstream, but MWI is bridge too far, way too far IMO. Why don't you just accept that the wf is simply irrelevant after the measurement occurs like in the horserace example?. Here, there's no collapse, no many worlds, no need to explain where the energy comes from which defines these worlds, and so forth? AG
>> Many Worlds could be called Austere Quantum Mechanics because it adds nothing to Schrödinger's Equation because nothing more is needed to explain observations.
> You still need the Born rule, including its intepretation as a probability.
> Why don't you just accept that the wf is simply irrelevant after the measurement occurs
On 16 Sep 2019, at 10:49, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:41:41 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
John K Clark
"Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a failure of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both.
@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c253db8c-0936-4e5c-a897-fca18b311431%40googlegroups.com.
> The fact that the squared amplitudes add up to unity is not particularly surprising when you have normalised the wave function!
> Showing that this is a probability is a whole other kettle of bananas.
On 16 Sep 2019, at 10:49, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:41:41 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:"Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a failure of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both.Why?Bruno
On 17-09-2019 13:32, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> So why do all Everettians have to add so many additional assumptions
> in order to pretend to get out the Born rule?
>
Simply assuming the special case of the Born rule that measuring a
system in an eigenstate of an observable will yield the eigenvalue of
that eigenstate with certainty, is enough.
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 3:01 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
On 17-09-2019 13:32, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> So why do all Everettians have to add so many additional assumptions
> in order to pretend to get out the Born rule?
>
Simply assuming the special case of the Born rule that measuring a
system in an eigenstate of an observable will yield the eigenvalue of
that eigenstate with certainty, is enough.
Where did the concept of an observable as an operator in a Hilbert space, and the idea that measurements correspond to the action of that observable on the state, giving a result that is the eigenvalue corresponding to the projected eigenvector, come from?
As I said, you have to build an awful lot into the Schrodinger equation in order to get out quantum physics. The Born rule is one of the hardest things to get. And no one has yet produced a convincing argument that the Born rule can be derived in Everettian QM.
Bruce
You can consider the case of
repeatedly preparing and measuring N copies of a system and then
consider the observable that corresponds to the frequency distribution
of the individual measurement outcomes in the limit of N to infinity.
The special case of the Born rule applied to observable for the
frequency distribution then implies the general Born rule.
Saibal
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTDkPX9u6j5cWV_coDm%2BackwBGD5_7CTYvVCvJa4upPUQ%40mail.gmail.com.
On 9/17/2019 3:49 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 3:01 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
On 17-09-2019 13:32, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> So why do all Everettians have to add so many additional assumptions
> in order to pretend to get out the Born rule?
>
Simply assuming the special case of the Born rule that measuring a
system in an eigenstate of an observable will yield the eigenvalue of
that eigenstate with certainty, is enough.
Where did the concept of an observable as an operator in a Hilbert space, and the idea that measurements correspond to the action of that observable on the state, giving a result that is the eigenvalue corresponding to the projected eigenvector, come from?
The operator should be expressible in terms of the Hamiltonian of the measuring instrument and its interaction with the system. But nobody tries to write down the Hamiltonian of the instrument; they just look at what it's supposed to measure classically and then they write an abstract operator that does that.
On 16 Sep 2019, at 15:28, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 7:11:30 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:58 PM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:49 AM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a failure of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both.
And I think the above demonstrates a lack of courage to face the possibility that reality may be structured in ways you do not like. As Carl Sagan said "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition".Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with any humanly devised equation."BruceAn Apology
I’m afraid I made a serious mistake in this previous posting discussing Sean Carroll’s new book. Since the book was relatively reasonable, while the jacket and promotional material that came with it were nonsense, I assumed that Carroll was just being ill-served by his publisher. It’s now clear I was very wrong. He’s on a book tour, and the nonsense is exactly what he is putting front and center as a revelation to the public about how to understand quantum mechanics. For a couple examples, here’s what was on the PBS News Hour
The “many worlds” theory in quantum mechanics suggests that with every decision you make, a new universe springs into existence containing what amounts to a new version of you. Bestselling author and theoretical physicist Sean Carroll discusses the concept and his new book, “Something Deeply Hidden,” with NewsHour Weekend’s Tom Casciato.
and here’s something from his talk down the street from me.
Using your public platform to tell people that the way to understand quantum mechanics is that the world splits depending on what you decide to do is simply What the Bleep? level stupidity. Those in the physics and science communication communities who care about the public understanding of quantum mechanics should think hard about what they can do to deal with this situation. They may however come to the same conclusion I’ve just reached: best to ignore him, which I’ll try to do from now on.
@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dc4c393e-7f4c-4146-979a-7e5874f3b4e0%40googlegroups.com.
On 17 Sep 2019, at 04:22, Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 12:19 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:Agnostic, Mind-Brain thing is good with me. According to a brief article, some theorists have mused about consciousness in the absence of matter. Check it out. It will either be a good laugh for you, but once in a while, the 'lofty' stuff works for me.As soon as the article mentioned Deepak Chopra I knew that we were deep into woo-woo territory….
BruceFrom: Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com>
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:39 AM spudboy100 via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:It would be (will be?) interesting when we achieve this. Serious, academic bench computer scientists are actively working on variations of machine intelligence to make this happen, money to be made. Are you stating that making a hyper-smart machine is impossible?No, I am agnostic about the possibility. Certainly I am not a Cartesian dualist -- mind-brain identity is the thing.....BruceAre you a spiritualist? A Cartesian dualist imputing a magic substance? :-)
From: Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com>
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 6:44 AM spudboy100 via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:So, if we develop AI to come up with new, better, equations, this would be good with you, because, non-human?
Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with any humanly devised equation."Bruce
Go for it, man! First develop your super-intelligent AI.......... And then see if the world conforms to its predictions......Bruce
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSR8NfcwfJ%2B%2BGxVWvg76%3Dy1%3DLq4pSkU_wn9CtD3XcV59A%40mail.gmail.com.
Bruce--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRWEhcgisyY22wfpefvxs4P%2BQQzUyks81EgVYTK%2BQy18w%40mail.gmail.com.
Bruce--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQ%3DxXCvOrY_cBiXeo3otcuHVNd6H83ZDSnkDsL5-C7gLA%40mail.gmail.com.
@philipthrift--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/233a6a14-fb59-4103-9829-5b2b9c5d0f47%40googlegroups.com.
and by simply assuming the wf is irrelevant after the measurement occurs, makes it all go away? AG
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0a946a13-9db2-4d29-8fa4-0cb19ad5f6ff%40googlegroups.com.
On 18 Sep 2019, at 00:45, Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> wrote:On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 2:52 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:On 17-09-2019 09:16, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:08 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I know. I was just being illustrative. But note that Carroll says much
> the same thing when he says worlds are created when you make a left or
> right turn, or flip a coin (or some equivalent analogy). AG
>
> And that is where Sean slips inevitably into woo-woo.
>
No, this is a rather solid result from assuming the validity of the
Schrodinger equation:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953
"We argue using simple models that all successful practical uses of
probabilities originate in quantum fluctuations in the microscopic
physical world around us, often propagated to macroscopic scales. Thus
we claim there is no physically verified fully classical theory of
probability. We comment on the general implications of this view, and
specifically question the application of classical probability theory to
cosmology in cases where key questions are known to have no quantum
answer. We argue that the ideas developed here may offer a way out of
the notorious measure problems of eternal inflation."They can argue this, but that falls far short of a demonstration that new branches split off for every decision we make.
In general, decisions are not choices from a set of possibilities in superposition, which would be the only way in which the proposal could make any sense.
Bruce
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTV_dThaUzX6W-QejFSA%3DPLtHyL-WvMj25F64yPUiJLRA%40mail.gmail.com.
@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ee4aa20d-b9bd-407b-b985-3ab107e0f7b2%40googlegroups.com.
but exactly why that's the case remains obscure. And these entanglements also connect the micro to the macro. AG
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c7e0194c-57fd-4eeb-8d17-d37f33936918%40googlegroups.com.
On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 6:31:15 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 17 Sep 2019, at 16:04, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:From a pragmatic perspective, I do not see any Everettian MW (theory, math, ideas, formulations, interpretations or whatever they want to call it) in computational quantum mechanics:If MW were important, it would be there.All computational theory (quantum or not) implies the "Many Computations”.Bruno
On 18 Sep 2019, at 21:15, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 3:01:23 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 6:33 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 1:08:16 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 1:02:39 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 4:51 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 3:54:46 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:22 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:> When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM and Relativity, people when overboard. Now any patently absurd result finds its justification among true believers.And in this context "patently absurd" means odd, not logically contradictory not paradoxical not contrary to experimental results, just odd. But as far as we know there is no law that says nature can't behave in ways that humans find odd.Many "odd" results are now mainstream, but MWI is bridge too far, way too far IMO. Why don't you just accept that the wf is simply irrelevant after the measurement occurs like in the horserace example?. Here, there's no collapse, no many worlds, no need to explain where the energy comes from which defines these worlds, and so forth? AGExcept that horses and horse races do not interfere (except in Australia, where several jockeys and trainers have recently been suspended for unauthorised interference -- but that is a different matter!)BruceI know. I was just being illustrative. But note that Carroll says much the same thing when he says worlds are created when you make a left or right turn, or flip a coin (or some equivalent analogy). AGBut suppose you flip a coin and while it's in the air, you write its wf. Since the prevailing belief is that all objects are quantum objects, why can't one suppose that the two terms in the superposition, head and tail, manifest quantum interference? AGWhy can't one observe a superposition of a live cat and a dead cat? The problem is decoherence, and coin tosses are totally decohered -- no quantum superpositions left. So one is reduced to standard classical ignorance probability .BruceYes, you're getting to the core of the issue, and there's more here then (than?) meets the eye, at least mine. It seems that quantum superpositions depend on isolation and are destroyed by entanglements,How could ever something destroyed an entanglement?
On the contrary, the entailment with an observer will just put the observer in a superposition state himself, and then assuming mechanism, you get the “illusion” of a collapse, without any need of collapse.Everett “many-worlds” is just the rather natural (for monist at least) idea that a physicist obeys to the laws of physics.Bruno
but exactly why that's the case remains obscure. And these entanglements also connect the micro to the macro. AG--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> Our decision are classical, so (even in the Everett quantum world) they do not "create new worlds”.
I suspect Sean Carroll is quoted out of context, as indeed that is a mistake (a common one).
> Has Carroll forgotten about effective theories? Even QFT is just an "effective theory". We use classical approximations to quantum mechanics because they work -- not for ideological or philosophical reasons.
On 20 Sep 2019, at 14:57, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 7:39:14 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 6:31:15 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 17 Sep 2019, at 16:04, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:From a pragmatic perspective, I do not see any Everettian MW (theory, math, ideas, formulations, interpretations or whatever they want to call it) in computational quantum mechanics:If MW were important, it would be there.All computational theory (quantum or not) implies the "Many Computations”.BrunoI guess. But I was looking at the actual libraries of computational QM programming repositories, and there is a lot of Monte Carlo for example but nothing explicitly Many Worlds.In Sean Carroll's advocacy of Many Worlds:The people who object to MWI because of all those unobservable worlds aren’t really objecting to MWI at all; they just don’t like and/or understand quantum mechanics. Hilbert space is big, regardless of one’s personal feelings on the matter.So in Sean's presentation, if you object to Many Worlds then you don't like/understand quantum mechanics.
[ But one could start instead with a (quantum) measure space: https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0589 ]When scientists proceed from the mathematics of any theory to an ontology of nature, they are being more of a religious guru than a scientific one.
@philipthrift--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6ed0ec8e-13fe-493a-8d73-490059c3d45e%40googlegroups.com.
On 20 Sep 2019, at 22:43, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 6:01:41 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 18 Sep 2019, at 21:15, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 3:01:23 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 6:33 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 1:08:16 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 1:02:39 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 4:51 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 3:54:46 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:22 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:> When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM and Relativity, people when overboard. Now any patently absurd result finds its justification among true believers.And in this context "patently absurd" means odd, not logically contradictory not paradoxical not contrary to experimental results, just odd. But as far as we know there is no law that says nature can't behave in ways that humans find odd.Many "odd" results are now mainstream, but MWI is bridge too far, way too far IMO. Why don't you just accept that the wf is simply irrelevant after the measurement occurs like in the horserace example?. Here, there's no collapse, no many worlds, no need to explain where the energy comes from which defines these worlds, and so forth? AGExcept that horses and horse races do not interfere (except in Australia, where several jockeys and trainers have recently been suspended for unauthorised interference -- but that is a different matter!)BruceI know. I was just being illustrative. But note that Carroll says much the same thing when he says worlds are created when you make a left or right turn, or flip a coin (or some equivalent analogy). AGBut suppose you flip a coin and while it's in the air, you write its wf. Since the prevailing belief is that all objects are quantum objects, why can't one suppose that the two terms in the superposition, head and tail, manifest quantum interference? AGWhy can't one observe a superposition of a live cat and a dead cat? The problem is decoherence, and coin tosses are totally decohered -- no quantum superpositions left. So one is reduced to standard classical ignorance probability .BruceYes, you're getting to the core of the issue, and there's more here then (than?) meets the eye, at least mine. It seems that quantum superpositions depend on isolation and are destroyed by entanglements,How could ever something destroyed an entanglement?I think any entanglement can be destroyed, or undone, by isolating a system. AG
On the contrary, the entailment with an observer will just put the observer in a superposition state himself, and then assuming mechanism, you get the “illusion” of a collapse, without any need of collapse.Everett “many-worlds” is just the rather natural (for monist at least) idea that a physicist obeys to the laws of physics.Brunobut exactly why that's the case remains obscure. And these entanglements also connect the micro to the macro. AG--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c7e0194c-57fd-4eeb-8d17-d37f33936918%40googlegroups.com.
--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/257d1ad3-e7d4-4a18-a31e-82a9b7266777%40googlegroups.com.
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1TaLwSSkLfpGnG6DjMJsX-OYvUvZdiPqGtd4%2BjJgAMrA%40mail.gmail.com.
On 21 Sep 2019, at 19:22, spudboy100 via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:I downloaded Carroll's book a few days ago. Will read it this weekend. Current physics research indicates that everything is entangled, which of course is the quantum,
but the thinking of physicists is that every law emerged from a basic soup of entanglement.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com>
To: everything-list <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Sep 21, 2019 7:10 am
Subject: Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:07 PM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:> Our decision are classical, so (even in the Everett quantum world) they do not "create new worlds”.
I suspect Sean Carroll is quoted out of context, as indeed that is a mistake (a common one).If there is one theme running through Sean Carroll's new book it's that nothing is classical and everything is Quantum Mechanical, and the deterministic wavefunction of the Multiverse can be thought of as a wavefunction of wavefunctions not of worlds because even the concept of a world is just a human approximation. He suggests our current difficulties in finding a theory that goes beyond General Relativity is that we're trying to find something to stick onto it to make it Quantum Mechanical but nature didn't start classical, it was Quantum Mechanical from day one, if there was a day one and there may not have been.John K Clark--https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1TaLwSSkLfpGnG6DjMJsX-OYvUvZdiPqGtd4%2BjJgAMrA%40mail.gmail.com
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit.--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1865333354.10636128.1569086576745%40mail.yahoo.com.
On 20 Sep 2019, at 14:57, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 7:39:14 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 6:31:15 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 17 Sep 2019, at 16:04, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:From a pragmatic perspective, I do not see any Everettian MW (theory, math, ideas, formulations, interpretations or whatever they want to call it) in computational quantum mechanics:If MW were important, it would be there.All computational theory (quantum or not) implies the "Many Computations”.BrunoI guess. But I was looking at the actual libraries of computational QM programming repositories, and there is a lot of Monte Carlo for example but nothing explicitly Many Worlds.In Sean Carroll's advocacy of Many Worlds:The people who object to MWI because of all those unobservable worlds aren’t really objecting to MWI at all; they just don’t like and/or understand quantum mechanics. Hilbert space is big, regardless of one’s personal feelings on the matter.So in Sean's presentation, if you object to Many Worlds then you don't like/understand quantum mechanics.Quantum Mechanics is “many-world” right at the start, (like Mechanism). That is why the founders have add the collapse postulate, but that leads all the time to non-sense, or to proposal that quantum mechanics is wrong.[ But one could start instead with a (quantum) measure space: https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0589 ]When scientists proceed from the mathematics of any theory to an ontology of nature, they are being more of a religious guru than a scientific one.That is correct. Even a theorem in the theology of the machine, ironically perhaps.But that is valid for a universes, whatever the cardinal a is, from zero to the cardinal of Laver …Now when doing metaphysics seriously, the number of universe and histories become a subject of matter, and we can try different theories, but with mechanism, it always multiplied the observers, which is annoying or pleasing according to our taste, but have no voice in the matter of searching the truth.As we cannot observe any “universe”, the consequence of the metaphysical cardinal of universes must be indirect, of course. With mechanism, we get 0 universes, even 0 token, but infinitely many types, and when universal type meet universal type, they multiply innumerably.Bruno
But other quantum experts use decoherence to explain quantum phenomena without invoking multiple universes.
On 9/23/2019 11:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
But other quantum experts use decoherence to explain quantum phenomena without invoking multiple universes.
"Without invoking" doesn't mean "denying".
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:44:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 9/23/2019 11:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
But other quantum experts use decoherence to explain quantum phenomena without invoking multiple universes.
"Without invoking" doesn't mean "denying".
It does if you believe in applying Occam's Razor. AG
If you're only interested in saving the phenomenon you can explain the apparent collapse by decoherence and not say anything about the other results that were predicted. Chris Fuchs explains quantum phenomenon without either collapse or multiple universes.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4ee8d0a4-f6e1-49b4-a510-0886b1eae672%40googlegroups.com.
On 9/23/2019 6:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:44:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 9/23/2019 11:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
But other quantum experts use decoherence to explain quantum phenomena without invoking multiple universes.
"Without invoking" doesn't mean "denying".
It does if you believe in applying Occam's Razor. AG
True. But I'm still waiting for pt to quote this expert saying he explains quantum phenomena without MW. He keeps implying it's Zurek, but I just read Zurek's paper on quantum Darwinism again and ISTM Zurek is assuming MWI throughout. QD is just his solution to the basis problem.
Brent
It just seems to him (and many others) to be the most elegant explanation for quantum mysteries.This is sad and funny. The others don't have a big book tour.I'm pretty much in agreement now more than ever with Alan G. here. The Many Worlds advocates are in some sort of "world" of reality denial.
@philipthrift--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/97b127bb-7e06-4f9d-879f-78ea301bb12d%40googlegroups.com.
On 24 Sep 2019, at 03:24, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:44:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 9/23/2019 11:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
But other quantum experts use decoherence to explain quantum phenomena without invoking multiple universes.
"Without invoking" doesn't mean "denying".It does if you believe in applying Occam's Razor. AG
If you're only interested in saving the phenomenon you can explain the apparent collapse by decoherence and not say anything about the other results that were predicted. Chris Fuchs explains quantum phenomenon without either collapse or multiple universes.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4ee8d0a4-f6e1-49b4-a510-0886b1eae672%40googlegroups.com.
On 24 Sep 2019, at 03:44, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 9/23/2019 6:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:44:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 9/23/2019 11:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
But other quantum experts use decoherence to explain quantum phenomena without invoking multiple universes.
"Without invoking" doesn't mean "denying".
It does if you believe in applying Occam's Razor. AG
True. But I'm still waiting for pt to quote this expert saying he explains quantum phenomena without MW. He keeps implying it's Zurek, but I just read Zurek's paper on quantum Darwinism again and ISTM Zurek is assuming MWI throughout. QD is just his solution to the basis problem.
Brent
--
If you're only interested in saving the phenomenon you can explain the apparent collapse by decoherence and not say anything about the other results that were predicted. Chris Fuchs explains quantum phenomenon without either collapse or multiple universes.
Brent
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4ee8d0a4-f6e1-49b4-a510-0886b1eae672%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ce794814-5b69-ddd5-d1e5-048da48909e3%40verizon.net.
@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9a02595e-7e5e-4f6d-b4ee-d75fd48d0a33%40googlegroups.com.
@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6275ff15-1724-47c5-9351-06c159cb50e1%40googlegroups.com.
On 24 Sep 2019, at 10:22, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 3:05:39 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 1:36:42 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 8:44:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 9/23/2019 6:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:44:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 9/23/2019 11:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
But other quantum experts use decoherence to explain quantum phenomena without invoking multiple universes.
"Without invoking" doesn't mean "denying".
It does if you believe in applying Occam's Razor. AG
True. But I'm still waiting for pt to quote this expert saying he explains quantum phenomena without MW. He keeps implying it's Zurek, but I just read Zurek's paper on quantum Darwinism again and ISTM Zurek is assuming MWI throughout. QD is just his solution to the basis problem.
Brent
Zurek is not on a book tour, nor does he tweet, but after the rollout of Carroll's book, one can only conclude:Many Worlds is religion, not science.@philipthriftRight. You'll notice how my comment that the MWI is tantamount to "hubris on steroids" was never responded to. Hopefully, he'll be denied tenure, and his book and personage can go into the dustbin of history, where it belongs. AGI can't believe (well, I guess I can believe) the number of physicist who think MWI is a valuable contribution to science. If you tell them otherwise they they you that you don't understand physics. Many Worlds is "in the math" (as Sean Carroll claims) so it must be true.They engage in magical thinking, but think they are doing science. Amazing.The many-histories is a logical consequence of the theory. To assume a theory without accepting its consequence is just wrong, or irrational.Bruno
Many Worlds is religion, not science.
@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9a02595e-7e5e-4f6d-b4ee-d75fd48d0a33%40googlegroups.com.
> Quantum Bayesianism, or QBism as Fuchs now calls it, solves many of quantum theory’s deepest mysteries.
> Since the wavefunction doesn’t belong to the system itself, each observer has her own. My wavefunction doesn’t have to align with yours.
But I don't see where Many Worlds as Carroll presents them are necessarily implied by these axioms.
@philipthrift--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d3cd0dab-58b7-4c1e-893f-f9c7821f9735%40googlegroups.com.
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c663ab06-d286-6548-b759-6bda783260ec%40verizon.net.