On 2/8/2025 4:07 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 5:28 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
/> Thus arbitrarily imposing a frequentist model on the world by
imagining an ensemble of universes. /
*Hugh Everett wasn't imagining, he was just taking seriously a
prediction that Schrodinger's Equation makes; *
Which is a very peculiar way of doing empirical science. Schroedinger
actually had the same problem with QM; he saw that "measurement" was not
explained by the evolution of his equation.
*it's true that particular prediction can't be tested, but many other
predictions that the equation makes can be and they've all passed with
flying colors; *
Neglecting the point that all those other worlds have no existence
beyond showing up in mathematics as having a probability bigger than
zero and less than one.
*therefore I see no reason why your default condition should be to
assume that other prediction is pure nonsense, especially given the
fact that it can explain why the quantum world is so weird.*
I don't consider it "pure nonsense". You're trying to push me into an
extreme position. I consider it an unsolved problem and so I argue
against the idea the MWI is a solution. It isn't because (1) it doesn't
actually explain the mechanism of worlds splitting, as evidenced by Sean
Carroll's answer to the question whether the splitting is instantaneous
across the universe or does it spread out in some way at the speed to
light? He says, "It doesn't matter." So much for a better
explanation. (2) It doesn't indicate how the Born rule is implemented
in the multiple worlds. Gleason's theorem shows that if the branches are
assigned consistent measures, then the measures must satisfy for Born
rule when there a three or more branches. But a straight forward
reading of just Schroedingers equation doesn't tell you how probability
measures get instantiated
/> This is really unecessary. It's just a sop to intuition./
*I don't know what you mean by that. If you can find a logical reason
to justify your intuition that is not a "/sop/", it is a profound
revelation.
*
Why doesn't your intuition just embrace probability and reflect that
probability means some things happen and other things don't. Do you do
this where ever probabilities are used? When you get a poker hand, do
imagine all possible poker hands were dealt in other worlds?
> Why not accept that probabilities need not be frequencies?
*I do because you can't use that approach to assess the probability of
a unique event, such as the probability that X will win the next
election. The 4 meanings of the word "probability" that I mentioned,
the ratio of favorable outcomes to all outcomes, the long run
frequency of an event occurring, a degree of belief which can be
updated when more information becomes available, and the square of the
absolute value of a quantum wave function, are all valid and do not
contradict each other; which one you use depends on the circumstances.
However if you don't believe in Many Worlds then, although you know
from experiment it works, it's very hard to understand why the square
of the absolute value of a quantum wave function works and how it can
**have any sort of relationship with the three other meanings of the
word "probability".*
*
*
*And it's always true that no matter how you calculate a probability,
if you obtain new information you may have to change that number.
Monty Hall asks you to pick a door and there is only one chance in
three that you will pick the one that has the prize behind it, but
later when Monty opens a door that you did NOT pick and you can see
that it did NOT have the prize behind and gives you a chance to change
your original pick you do because now that you've obtained new
information your chance of getting the price increases from 1/3 to 2/3.*
> /Did you not read my essay on the subject? /
*Yes and I couldn't find anything in it that was controversial, I
agree with it; but I thinkyou should have at least mentioned the
square of the absolute value of a quantum wave function. **I
especially liked it when you said:*
/"So there are (at least) four ways to interpret a probability
assignment"/
Yes I'm thinking of adding a discussion of quantum probability to
emphasize that not every probability is based on ignorance. I
originally wrote it for a class I was teaching to engineers involved in
reliability prediction and testing.
Brent/
/
/
/
*John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>*
owa
--
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/CAJPayv2zNnsE8NhyFrrMwsdJ_W%3DZcsdfyas4WWOU_cf7ziiqig%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2zNnsE8NhyFrrMwsdJ_W%3DZcsdfyas4WWOU_cf7ziiqig%40mail.gmail.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/5b26a64f-ea89-4b53-8fe8-c8fa92d14ed4%40gmail.com.
