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 > > >
BTW, I developed the *Reflective Path Integral l*ast year, and then more than a year later I see the arXiv article on *mirror matter*. Clearly a case of precognition. :) @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/1ce6bdb9-7a56-460f-92f6-8fb48f27921c%40googlegroups.com.
