Where did I use the word "never"?

Is it your contention that every possibility must be realized, in which case "possibility" loses all meaning and might as well be replaced by reality.

Brent

On 8/25/2025 1:34 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
If you claim possibilities “objectively exist” but are never realized, you’re redefining “existence” into something empty. An "objective" possibility with no ontological counterpart is indistinguishable from non-existence.

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

Le lun. 25 août 2025, 21:50, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> a écrit :

    "Correspond" is a weak word. An expectation corresponds to the
    thing expected.  And the expectation is real.  But it doesn't
    follow that the thing expected is realized.  Possibility is not
    equivalent to reality.

    Brent

    On 8/25/2025 12:14 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
    Brent,

    Saying that a possibility "objectively exists" but does not
    correspond to any reality is paradoxical. Either it exists, in
    which case it is part of reality, or it doesn’t, in which case
    it’s not an objective possibility.

    Quentin



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

    Le lun. 25 août 2025, 20:40, Brent Meeker <[email protected]>
    a écrit :



        On 8/25/2025 12:04 AM, smitra wrote:
        But then one is defining "this universe" post hoc after the
        photon lands on some point on the screen. One can do that,
        but this means that there are two possibilities that really
        exist. Whether that's considered to be in a single universe
        or two universes is just semantics. There are two classes of
        paths for the photon, one class is the set of paths through
        one slit, the other are the paths through the other slit.

        Given that's the case, we can then do another measurement
        where we simply measure through which slit the photon goes.
        We then don't bother to let the photon move through toward
        the screen anymore, we just detect the outcome of measuring
        whether the photon after moving past either slits ends up
        being detected immediately after the left or the right slit.

        If I then perform one such measurement, and I decide to go
        on vacation destination X if the photon is detected behind
        the left slit and I go to vacation destination Y if the
        result is the right slit, and I end up going to X, the
        question is if there exists a parallel world where I go to Y.

        The question for people who would say that only one world
        where I go to X exists, is then to explain why both
        possibilities for the photon going to the left or right slit
        objectively exists when we detect the photon only at the
        screen, but only one possibility exists when we detect the
        photon directly after passing the slits.
        The answer is, Don't confound possibility with reality. 
        Possibilities "objectively exist" doesn't mean the
        corresponding realities exist. When you measure at one slit
        there is a different reality than when measuring at the screen.

        Brent

        Saibal



        On 18-08-2025 21:56, Brent Meeker wrote:
        Whatever goes thru the other slit to create the
        cancellation is doing
        it in the same universe; and incidentally it also increases
        the
        incidence at other points.  So I don't see that it implies
        a parallel
        universe.

        Brent

        On 8/17/2025 10:31 AM, smitra wrote:

        See here:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bux0SjaUCY0&t=885s
        <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bux0SjaUCY0&t=885s>

        Of course, you can never get to 100% rigorous proof in
        physics like
        in mathematics. You can never rule out waking up tomorrow
        in some
        alien world and aliens telling you that your life here on
        Earth was
        a simulation and that everything you thought you knew
        about the laws
        of physics is false.

        The nice thing about the argument by Deutsch is that it
        doesn't
        depend on QM being correct, it is based on interpreting the
        interference experiment. So, QM could be wrong, or it
        could be that
        some of the claims of the MWI proponents are wrong, and
        yet this
        argument by Deutsch will still stand.

        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 [email protected].
        To view this discussion visit
        
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a1de5682-0789-4d6d-8794-28d553b68979%40gmail.com

        [1].


        Links:
        ------
        [1]
        
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a1de5682-0789-4d6d-8794-28d553b68979%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
        
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a1de5682-0789-4d6d-8794-28d553b68979%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>



-- 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
        [email protected].
        To view this discussion visit
        
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8ad48823-1135-483b-90fe-b9249c3257c1%40gmail.com
        
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8ad48823-1135-483b-90fe-b9249c3257c1%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

-- 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 [email protected].
    To view this discussion visit
    
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kArVxEco-aY%3D0xw1ktADavpJvwbhaXMgNrXUFBupQJCxyA%40mail.gmail.com
    
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kArVxEco-aY%3D0xw1ktADavpJvwbhaXMgNrXUFBupQJCxyA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

-- 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 [email protected].
    To view this discussion visit
    
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/09f1e290-9a15-4e11-adc7-3fb43fe7bbbe%40gmail.com
    
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/09f1e290-9a15-4e11-adc7-3fb43fe7bbbe%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

--
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 [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAq%3DoUbNSGZ3B7T945GGNv-Vovajc40kj8QC%3D7d5%2BgTHfg%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAq%3DoUbNSGZ3B7T945GGNv-Vovajc40kj8QC%3D7d5%2BgTHfg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

--
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bea0de9d-e989-4da5-b152-5d7df5be11ba%40gmail.com.

Reply via email to