On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 4:59:43 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 3:07:48 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 10:10:14 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> >>> On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 9:58:37 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 9:45:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 15 Jun 2019, at 19:37, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 12:10:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 6/15/2019 12:29 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I've basically lived my life believing what I want, I think. >>>>>> I'm not trying to *convince* anyone of anything. >>>>>> >>>>>> One thing I might try to convince people of: >>>>>> >>>>>> *Physics is fiction.* >>>>>> >>>>>> Vic Stenger would have said "Physics is models". >>>>>> >>>>>> There are always alternative models, and new ones likely coming in >>>>>> the future. >>>>>> >>>>>> To find *reality in a model* (to make truth claims in the vocabulary >>>>>> of a model) is a form of religious fundamentalism. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You say you're not trying to convince anyone of anything, but you >>>>>> repeatedly slap pejorative labels on other viewpoints. You use them >>>>>> like >>>>>> Trump uses nick names. I avoids actually making an argument against >>>>>> them >>>>>> while disparaging them. >>>>>> >>>>>> So in this specific instance: Where do you look for reality? Or do >>>>>> you suppose there is no reality. If you trained a neural network so >>>>>> that >>>>>> it could produce all the predictions about physics problems that the >>>>>> community of physicists do, would it be just as good as the theories it >>>>>> replaces? >>>>>> >>>>>> Brent >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't criticize other theories. Any theory anyone want's top pursue >>>>> is is fine. >>>>> >>>>> It's just the Physics Gestapo I criticize. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is not physics Gestaop. Only physicalist gestapo, or the usual >>>>> confusion (Aristotle basic philosophy) between physics and metaphysics, >>>>> which is incompatible with Mechanism. >>>>> >>>>> Bruno >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The Physics Gestapo apparently treats lightly those who say matter >>>> comes out of arithmetic. :) >>>> >>>> @philipthrift >>>> >>> >>> I can't remember the moniker on this, but there is a signature of an >>> email discussion gone bad when people start invoking Nazis. There is no >>> Gestapo here. The problem is frankly you are most likely wrong; these sorts >>> of deformations of QM have a consistent history of not working. Just >>> because people such as Price keep banging their heads on this does not mean >>> it is alive --- more like beating a dead horse. Please stop using Nazi >>> references. >>> >>> LC >>> >> >> >> But you avoid the question. >> >> Why does, whatever you want to call them, >> >> * Physics Fundamentalists* >> >> [ those with "a point of view characterized by a return to fundamental >> principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by >> intolerance of other views" -- freedictionary ] >> >> is better, go after the retrocausal people and not the many-worlds people? >> >> @philipthrift >> > > I generally do like these discussion threads when they pass the 100 mark > and start to paginate. So if I do not address any of the posts from today > or yesterday that are relevant this may be my last entry here. > > The difference between a retrocausal theory and a quantum interpretation > is that a proper quantum interpretation does not violate the postulates of > QM, while retrocausality does. Such interpretations, and they are > multiplying like rabbits these days, are auxiliary physical axioms or > postulates meant to make sense of how quantum outcomes of measurements > obtain. Retrocausality means there is a classical underpinning to QM which > would mean the statistics should obey the Bell inequalities. Experimentally > this is known not to happen, and quantum mechanical reasoning illustrates > why. If there is a hidden variable that is a classical observable that can > be accessed that determines QM and apparent nonlocality, and most > importantly this is experimentally demonstrated I will change my stance on > this. > > LC >
What you wrote is 100% garbage: a proper quantum interpretation does not violate the postulates of QM, while retrocausality does A New Class of Retrocausal Models https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.09731 Retrocausality: A Toy Model https://demonstrations.wolfram.com/RetrocausalityAToyModel/ Retrocausality at no extra cost http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11183/1/RetroMeta.pdf A relativistic retrocausal model violating Bell’s inequality https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.2014.0454 There is nothing in the path-integral (PI) formulation (Dowker, Sorkin) that "outlaws" retrocausation (i.e. PI can be consistently extended to include it). Not only do you sound like a Physics Fundamentalist, you sound like a quack. @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/d235bc43-2fe2-4c0b-b44d-1ee486d6b95e%40googlegroups.com.
