On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 3:12:23 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 2:45:38 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:34 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 2:00:43 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:28 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 1:14:32 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:53 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10 Jun 2019, at 08:54, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 4:34 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Retrocausal hidden variable models are completely compatible with
>>>>>>>> experiments, unless QM itself is wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If retrocausality is right, then QM itself is certainly wrong. In
>>>>>>> the EPR situation, the singlet state is rotationally symmetric in
>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>> QM, and this cannot be the case if that state is dependent on the
>>>>>>> future
>>>>>>> polariser settings. Conversely, if QM is right, retrocausality is
>>>>>>> impossible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If QM with collapse is right, I would understand and agree. That is
>>>>>>> why Deutsch see the “retrocausality” has a semantic variant of the
>>>>>>> many-worlds interpretations, but I have not entirely figure out if this
>>>>>>> makes sense
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It makes no sense at all! Deutsch has gone completely off the rails
>>>>>> over quantum mechanics. He is essentially abandoning the theory as it
>>>>>> currently stands. The argument from symmetry is, to my mind, a total
>>>>>> killer
>>>>>> of any retrocausal explanation -- retrocausality must destroy the very
>>>>>> symmetry that is at the heart of the QM predictions for the singlet
>>>>>> state,
>>>>>> Collapse and many worlds are all irrelevant to this argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The non-locality of the quantum singlet state is irreducible, and
>>>>>> neither retrocausality nor many worlds has any impact on this central
>>>>>> conclusion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bruce
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in the Omnes-Griffith-Gelman-Hartle view of the many-worlds. That
>>>>>>> would be nice and eliminate t’hooft’s need of “super-determinism”
>>>>>>> (mechanism is trivially "super-deterministic" in the third person view,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> not at all in the first person views—that plays a role for
>>>>>>> free-will/self-determination).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bruno
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "quantum mechanics [is] a theory of quantal histories, without ever
>>>>> needing to call on state-vectors, measurements, or external agents as
>>>>> fundamental notions"
>>>>>
>>>>> Rafael Sorkin
>>>>> https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/people/rafael-sorkin
>>>>>
>>>>> The whole thing about quantum "states" is just a cult view, like a
>>>>> religion.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorkin has a long history of misunderstanding the basis of quantum
>>>> mechanics. Paths, or quantum histories, are just a way of calculating
>>>> probabilities -- there is no ontology there. Just like Feynman diagrams,
>>>> virtual particles and all that. Merely calculational techniques with no
>>>> ontological content. Quantal histories do not eliminate the notion of the
>>>> "quantum state".
>>>>
>>>> Besides, quantal histories no more eliminate non-locality than does
>>>> retrocausality or many worlds.
>>>>
>>>> Bruce
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course in the reflective histories model there are histories and
>>> (their mirror images) futures.
>>> - https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/03/16/mirror-mirror/
>>>
>>>
>>> Like I've said, people can wander through life believing in what they
>>> want. I did not have *God* speak to me and tell me the absolute truth
>>> about these things, like some apparently have.
>>>
>>
>> You have a remarkable ability to avoid the issues, Phil. Enlighten me
>> about what reflective histories can tell me about the world, and what
>> particular predictions they can make that cannot be obtained in other ways.
>> In other words, why should I care a stuff about what you are saying?
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
>
> Is there a particular detail in the article "The Reflective Path
> Integral" <https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/03/16/mirror-mirror/>you
> are pointing to?
>
> It seems to me there are umpteen "other ways" of predicting the same
> things. That's just Quine's scientific underdetermination of scientific
> theories.
>
>
> I was surprised to come across "mirror matter":
>
> *The theory of mirror matter predicts a hidden sector made up of a copy of
> the Standard Model particles and interactions but with opposite parity.*
> —arXiv:1710.00767 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.00767>
>
> That seems closer to the Reflective Path Integral than to Many Worlds, or
> to any other QM model.
>
>
> The path integral is the wave of the future.
>
> @philipthrift
>
>
>
Also you say "Sorkin has a long history of misunderstanding the basis of
quantum mechanics."
Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Sorkin
Does he misunderstand it, but you understand it? Who are you? can you prove
your claim that he misunderstands it?
@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 [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/58edeab6-db5c-48f6-aac6-b037adcec4b6%40googlegroups.com.
