3 ms·

> It's a statement of the Everett/relative state/many worlds interpretation No, it isn't. I've said nothing about many-worlds, only reversibility. And on th

by lisper 5y ago

> It's a statement of the Everett/relative state/many worlds interpretation No, it isn't. I've said nothing about many-worlds, only reversibility. And on that point everyone agrees. > Now it's dinner time, you don't believe that You really need to read the link above. It goes into all that in great detail. But the TL;DR here is that if it's dinner time, you haven't actually reversed the measurement, notwithstanding your current mental state with respect to the photon.

thisrod 5y ago
> You really need to read the link above I don't like claims to authority, but maybe you should read the papers I've published about Bell inequalities too? :-p It sounds like you're saying that, in principle, physical processes are all reversible. (Although that is often thermodynamically impossible in practice.) You're also saying that it's impossible in principle for someone to learn the result of a measurement in the morning, then unlearn it when the measurement is reversed during the afternoon. I don't see how there could be a self-consistent interpretation of quantum measurement where both those things are true.
- lisper 5y ago
  > maybe you should read the papers I've published How am I supposed to do that? You haven't provided and references and your profile is empty. > in principle, physical processes are all reversible Correct. This is a straightforward mathematical property of the Schroedinger equation. > it's impossible in principle for someone to learn the result of a measurement in the morning, then unlearn it when the measurement is reversed during the afternoon That's right. But that's not because it's impossible to reverse the measurement. It's because when you reverse a measurement you don't just "unlearn" the result. You really should read the reference I gave you.

3 ms·

> It's a statement of the Everett/relative state/many worlds interpretation No, it isn't. I've said nothing about many-worlds, only reversibility. And on th

by lisper 5y ago

thisrod 5y ago
> You really need to read the link above I don't like claims to authority, but maybe you should read the papers I've published about Bell inequalities too? :-p It sounds like you're saying that, in principle, physical processes are all reversible. (Although that is often thermodynamically impossible in practice.) You're also saying that it's impossible in principle for someone to learn the result of a measurement in the morning, then unlearn it when the measurement is reversed during the afternoon. I don't see how there could be a self-consistent interpretation of quantum measurement where both those things are true.
- lisper 5y ago
  > maybe you should read the papers I've published How am I supposed to do that? You haven't provided and references and your profile is empty. > in principle, physical processes are all reversible Correct. This is a straightforward mathematical property of the Schroedinger equation. > it's impossible in principle for someone to learn the result of a measurement in the morning, then unlearn it when the measurement is reversed during the afternoon That's right. But that's not because it's impossible to reverse the measurement. It's because when you reverse a measurement you don't just "unlearn" the result. You really should read the reference I gave you.