On Monday, January 6, 2025 at 2:38:43 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le lun. 6 janv. 2025, 00:41, Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> a écrit : On 1/4/2025 11:21 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le dim. 5 janv. 2025, 01:18, Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> a écrit : 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. Because to me in itself, only one world is absurd... as absurd that my life is finite and preceeded by an infinite time in the past and infinite time in the future... You think it absurd that you didn't exist in the past and after a finite time you will no longer exist?? Most people, and physicists, think that's the case. I know reality doesn't have to please me, but one world theory is as absurd as absurd can be imo. Only a theory about information where everything exists seems lesz absurd, yeah there is a gazillion things in it, so there is also in one world, thing is with MW like things, there is an explanation for you to be, you're one of the possibilities... in one world, you're one possibilities realised whatever that means against all not realised whatever that means, the realised thing is the absurd. It's just improbable, which is quite different from absurd. Every hand of bridge I've been dealt was improbable, but I never considered one absurd. Brent I understand your analogy with improbable bridge hands, but I think the difference lies in the nature of "improbable" versus "absurd" when we scale it to the entirety of existence. The improbability of any specific bridge hand exists within a defined framework with clear rules and outcomes—it is improbable, but not absurd because we understand the context. In the case of existence, a single-world theory suggests that out of infinite possibilities, only one outcome is "realized." This is not just improbable—it's a rejection of the inherent structure of possibility itself. Without a multiverse or some equivalent explanation, the realization of just one world feels like a singular, unexplained "bridge hand" with no deck, no dealer, and no game. It's the framework itself that becomes suspect. With a many-worlds or "everything exists" perspective, there is a structure that accounts for all possibilities, including the one where "I am." It doesn't feel absurd because existence is distributed across possibilities rather than being inexplicably concentrated into one. The absurdity for me isn't about odds; it's about the lack of explanatory context in a single-world view. Does that make sense? Quentin *FWIW, whereas the MWI is IMO absurd, multiple worlds is not if you consider eternal inflation as a possible model of reality. AG * Quentin -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Roy Betty, Rutger Hauer 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* -- 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/a4677738-bd4b-4673-be92-cbd96681b186n%40googlegroups.com.
