Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 6:39 PM Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Brent, > > You say that unrealized possibilities are what probabilities quantify, but > in a single-history framework, those possibilities never had any existence > beyond the formalism. If only one history is real, then all other > possibil

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

Bruce, Repeated experiments don’t change the core issue. Even if you perform an experiment a trillion times, in a single-history universe, there is still only one realized sequence of outcomes. That means certain possibilities with greater than zero probability will simply never happen—not just in

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 7:53 PM Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Repeated experiments don’t change the core issue. Even if you perform an > experiment a trillion times, in a single-history universe, there is still > only one realized sequence of outcomes. That means certain possibilities > with greater

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

Bruce, That still doesn't address the core issue. If the universe has a unique history and a finite existence, then there is a fundamental limit to the number of repetitions that can ever occur. There is no guarantee that all possible outcomes will ever be realized, no matter how large N is. Some

Re: SpaceTime Diagrams

On Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 10:26:05 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: On Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 10:11:19 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote: On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 11:55 PM Alan Grayson wrote: On Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 9:11:38 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote: On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 9:42 PM

Re: SpaceTime Diagrams

On Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 11:26:58 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: On 2/4/2025 9:02 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 9:51:30 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: You need to describe things in a single coord system in order to model interactions between them. Brent B

Re: Quentin on Car Parking Paradox

On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 3:37:31 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: AG, the fact that your only response is to repeat "PRICK" like a broken record says everything about your inability to engage in actual discussion. You just admitted that it's possible you're still clinging to classical

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 3:36:11 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le mer. 5 févr. 2025, 22:25, Alan Grayson a écrit : On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 1:36:55 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: Brent, I went through the document you sent, and it outlines the different interpretati

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 9:57 AM Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Bruce, > > You’re trying to reduce the issue to my supposed "difficulty" with > randomness, but that’s not the point. The problem isn’t whether quantum > events are random—it’s whether probability has a meaningful foundation in a > single-hi

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

Bruce, You keep insisting that randomness "just is" and that no deeper explanation is possible, but that’s precisely the problem with the single-history view: it reduces probability to a descriptive afterthought with no fundamental meaning. You argue that in a single-history universe, we must simp

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

Brent, Your response is full of rhetorical flourishes, but it still doesn’t address the fundamental issue: in a single-history universe, probability describes things that never had any reality and never could have. You claim that probabilities "could have existed," but in a single history, that’s

Re: Is infinite idiocy possible?

On 2/5/2025 6:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 6:36:22 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: The question is who will stop him?  Not Congress, certainly not as long as the spineless Republicans have the majority.  And even if the Democrats gain control in the

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

Brent, You're leaning heavily on the idea that probability is meaningful simply because it's applied before knowing the outcome. But that doesn't address the real problem: in a single-history world, probability isn’t describing actual potentialities—it’s describing imagined ones that were never pa

Re: SpaceTime Diagrams

On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 12:26 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 10:11:19 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 11:55 PM Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 9:11:38 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 9:42 PM Al

Re: Quentin on Car Parking Paradox

AG, after all your backpedaling, dodging, and attempts to rewrite history, you’re now pretending to ask a sincere question? Fine, I’ll humor you—though we both know you’ll just find another way to twist this. The so-called paradox arises when someone incorrectly assumes that both frames should agr

Re: SpaceTime Diagrams

On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 2:15:44 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote: On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 12:26 AM Alan Grayson wrote: On Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 10:11:19 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote: On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 11:55 PM Alan Grayson wrote: On Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 9:11:38 PM U

Quentin on Car Parking Paradox

FWIW, I've established to my satisfaction that the "paradox" is unrelated to the fact that the car fits and doesn't fit in the garage. As Clark pointed out, this result is "odd". And it is not related to Clark claim the alleged paradox has anything to do with the idea that fitting and not filli

Re: Quentin on Car Parking Paradox

On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 2:31:11 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: AG, after all your backpedaling, dodging, and attempts to rewrite history, you’re now pretending to ask a sincere question? Fine, I’ll humor you—though we both know you’ll just find another way to twist this. The so-cal

Re: Quentin on Car Parking Paradox

AG, I answered your question directly. The fact that you don’t like the answer—or that it exposes your bad faith—isn’t my problem. The paradox arises from the false assumption that there is a universal simultaneity, leading to the mistaken belief that the car must fit and not fit in an absolute se

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 7:36 AM Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Brent, > > I went through the document you sent, and it outlines the different > interpretations of probability: mathematical, physical symmetry, degree of > belief, and empirical frequency. But none of these resolve the core issue > in a si

Re: Quentin on Car Parking Paradox

On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 3:09:30 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: AG, I answered your question directly. The fact that you don’t like the answer—or that it exposes your bad faith—isn’t my problem. The paradox arises from the false assumption that there is a universal simultaneity, lea

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 1:36:55 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: Brent, I went through the document you sent, and it outlines the different interpretations of probability: mathematical, physical symmetry, degree of belief, and empirical frequency. But none of these resolve the core i

Re: Is infinite idiocy possible?

On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 7:14:50 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote: *Just when I thought Trump's idea of taking over Canada Panama and Greenland couldn't get any stupider the man has proven me wrong, Trump now wants to send soldiers to Gaza so we can "own" it, and then deport all the Palesti

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

On 2/4/2025 11:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Brent, You say that unrealized possibilities are what probabilities quantify, but in a single-history framework, those possibilities never had any existence beyond the formalism. I don't know what "formalism" means in that context.  When you calc

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

Bruce, You’re trying to reduce the issue to my supposed "difficulty" with randomness, but that’s not the point. The problem isn’t whether quantum events are random—it’s whether probability has a meaningful foundation in a single-history universe where only one sequence of events is ever realized.

Re: Quentin on Car Parking Paradox

AG, the irony of you accusing me of not "getting it" while you continuously move the goalposts is almost impressive. You’ve spent this entire discussion dodging explanations, shifting arguments, and now pretending that maybe, just maybe, you might have had a reason for not accepting the answer ear

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

Bruce, Quantum mechanics has explanatory power because it provides accurate predictions and a framework for modeling reality. The problem isn’t with quantum mechanics itself—it’s with trying to reconcile probability with a single-history universe where only one sequence of events ever occurs. In

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 3:16:04 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: Bruce, Quantum mechanics has explanatory power because it provides accurate predictions and a framework for modeling reality. The problem isn’t with quantum mechanics itself—it’s with trying to reconcile probability wit

Re: Quentin on Car Parking Paradox

On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 3:24:36 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: AG, the irony of you accusing me of not "getting it" while you continuously move the goalposts is almost impressive. You keep doing the same thing. You have zero ability for self reflection. AN INCORRIGIBLE PRICK. AG

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

Le mer. 5 févr. 2025, 22:25, Alan Grayson a écrit : > > > On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 1:36:55 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Brent, > > I went through the document you sent, and it outlines the different > interpretations of probability: mathematical, physical symmetry, degree of > bel

Re: Quentin on Car Parking Paradox

AG, the fact that your only response is to repeat "PRICK" like a broken record says everything about your inability to engage in actual discussion. You just admitted that it's possible you're still clinging to classical notions of time. That’s the closest thing to progress you’ve made in this enti

Re: Quentin on Car Parking Paradox

Why can't you just answer my question and cease being a pseudo mind-reading PRICK? Yes, that's what you are. No doubt about it. AG On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 2:31:11 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > AG, after all your backpedaling, dodging, and attempts to rewrite history, > you’re now

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 9:16 AM Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Bruce, > > Quantum mechanics has explanatory power because it provides accurate > predictions and a framework for modeling reality. The problem isn’t with > quantum mechanics itself—it’s with trying to reconcile probability with a > single-h

Is infinite idiocy possible?

*Just when I thought Trump's idea of taking over Canada Panama and Greenland couldn't get any stupider the man has proven me wrong, Trump now wants to send soldiers to Gaza so we can "own" it, and then deport all the Palestinians now living in Gaza to countries in which they don't want to go to and

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

Brent, I went through the document you sent, and it outlines the different interpretations of probability: mathematical, physical symmetry, degree of belief, and empirical frequency. But none of these resolve the core issue in a single-history universe—where probability is supposed to describe "po

DeepSeek R1 GAVE ITSELF a 200% Speed Boost - Self-Evolving AI

*DeepSeek R1 GAVE ITSELF a 200% Speed Boost - Self-Evolving AI* *John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at Extropolis * 3sy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

Brent, You're arguing that probabilities in a single-world framework are as real as those of observed events because they are derived from the same equations. But if only one history ever happens, then unrealized possibilities are just numbers in a calculation, not something that ever had a chance

Re: Is infinite idiocy possible?

On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 1:50 PM Alan Grayson wrote: *>> Just when I thought Trump's idea of taking over Canada Panama and > Greenland couldn't get any stupider the man has proven me wrong, Trump now > wants to send soldiers to Gaza so we can "own" it, and then deport all the > Palestinians now liv

Re: Is infinite idiocy possible?

What's Next! On Wed, Feb 5, 2025, 11:08 AM John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 1:50 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: > > *>> Just when I thought Trump's idea of taking over Canada Panama and >> Greenland couldn't get any stupider the man has proven me wrong, Trump now >> wants to send soldiers t

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 6:54:26 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote: On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 5:48 AM Bruce Kellett wrote: *> The sequence of N repetitions gives you an estimate of the probability distribution*. *OK, but even if N=1, such as when I flip a coin just once, I can still obtai

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

Bruce, Let’s take your own argument about probability and push it to its logical conclusion. You said that if something with a 30% probability doesn’t happen in a given set of trials, that just means the prior probability estimate was wrong. Fine. Now, let’s apply that logic to a real-world scenar

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 11:05 AM Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Bruce, > > Let’s take your own argument about probability and push it to its logical > conclusion. You said that if something with a 30% probability doesn’t > happen in a given set of trials, that just means the prior probability > estimate

Re: Is infinite idiocy possible?

The question is who will stop him?  Not Congress, certainly not as long as the spineless Republicans have the majority.  And even if the Democrats gain control in the mid-terms they may no be much better.  He's packed the Supreme court and Andrew Jackson pointed out they don't have an enforceme

Re: Is infinite idiocy possible?

On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 6:36:22 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: The question is who will stop him? Not Congress, certainly not as long as the spineless Republicans have the majority. And even if the Democrats gain control in the mid-terms they may no be much better. He's packed the

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

On 2/5/2025 12:10 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Brent, You're arguing that probabilities in a single-world framework are as real as those of observed events because they are derived from the same equations. But if only one history ever happens, then unrealized possibilities are just numbers i

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

On 2/5/2025 12:36 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Brent, I went through the document you sent, and it outlines the different interpretations of probability: mathematical, physical symmetry, degree of belief, and empirical frequency. But none of these resolve the core issue in a single-history u

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

On 2/5/2025 5:53 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 5:48 AM Bruce Kellett wrote: /> The sequence of N  repetitions gives you an estimate of the probability distribution/. *OK, but even if N=1, such as when I flip a coin just once, I can still obtain a probability of it

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

Bruce, You’re making a distinction between single-event probabilities and repeated trials, but you’re not addressing the core issue: in a single-history universe, probability is only ever descriptive, not explanatory. You claim that if an asteroid has an 80% chance of impact but doesn’t hit, then

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

On 2/5/2025 5:27 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 6:22 PM Brent Meeker wrote: /If all possibilities were realized the wouldn't have probabilities assigned to them...exactly the problem that arises in MWI./ *You've forgotten that it's not just an electron that is a q

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 11:49 AM Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Bruce, > > You’re making a distinction between single-event probabilities and > repeated trials, but you’re not addressing the core issue: in a > single-history universe, probability is only ever descriptive, not > explanatory. You claim th

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

Le jeu. 6 févr. 2025, 00:46, Brent Meeker a écrit : > > > > On 2/5/2025 12:53 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Bruce, > > Repeated experiments don’t change the core issue. Even if you perform an > experiment a trillion times, in a single-history universe, there is still > only one realized sequence

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

On 2/5/2025 12:53 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Bruce, Repeated experiments don’t change the core issue. Even if you perform an experiment a trillion times, in a single-history universe, there is still only one realized sequence of outcomes. That means certain possibilities with greater than

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 6:22 PM Brent Meeker wrote: *If all possibilities were realized the wouldn't have probabilities > assigned to them...exactly the problem that arises in MWI.* *You've forgotten that it's not just an electron that is a quantum object** and thus part of the Universal Wave Fu

Re: Why even physicists still don’t understand quantum theory 100 years on

On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 5:48 AM Bruce Kellett wrote: > *> The sequence of N repetitions gives you an estimate of the probability > distribution*. > *OK, but even if N=1, such as when I flip a coin just once, I can still obtain a probability of it coming up heads that makes sense. And the long-r