On 1/4/2025 1:11 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2025 at 1:46:26 PM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 4, 2025 at 10:00 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com>
wrote:
/> Moderation is inappropriate where Trump physics is
endorsed. AG /
*About a month ago Sean Carroll uploaded a very good video
explaining the Many Worlds theory, but it's over an hour long so I
know there's about as much chance of a dilettante such as yourself
of actually watching it is there is of you reading a post of mine
if it's longer than about 100 words. *
*
*
*The Many Worlds of Quantum Mechanics | Dr. Sean Carroll
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTmxIUz21bo&t=8s> *
*
*
*John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>*
*Sure, I'll watch it. But I am still waiting for your reply to my
question, posed around 10 times, why, based on S's equation, every
thing that can happen, MUST HAPPEN. *
Basically it boils down to two things. One, they think the Schoredinger
equation is sufficient to described measurement so long as the world can
separate into independent copies for each eigenvalue of the
measurement. Exactly how this separation proceeds and how it is
originated is sort of hand wavy, but they're sure it can be squared.
Second, they want everything to be deterministic. So having all but one
of the world's go away would require randomness per the Born rule. At
one time they thought the Born rule was already implict in the
Schoredinger equation. But since everything happens it's not so clear
what it means that probabilities are equal to the squared amplitude.
Probability of what? Not probability of a value happening. Probability
of finding oneself in a particular world? How does the probability
amplitude of a quantum event get to apply some kind of "weight" to you
or to a world? One my say "That's just the way it is. If it's
probabilistic then it must follow Born's rule by Gleanson's theorem."
But then that's assuming it's probabilistic, not just Schroedinger's
equation...in which case why not just bite the bullet and says it's the
probability that a particular world exists.
Brent
*And please don't offer your BS that you've answered it repeatedly.
Such a claim would be blatent lie. Finally, I know what you haven't
offered the answer. It's really simple. You don't want to admit the
Emperor has no clothes, as such an admission might trigger a coronary
when you realize you've been preaching a lie these many years. AG *
0o1
--
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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8f40a852-bc1f-4499-aba1-ee14472680c3n%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8f40a852-bc1f-4499-aba1-ee14472680c3n%40googlegroups.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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e15c5022-2921-4e00-a10a-6c46455b345d%40gmail.com.
