3 ms·

> Again statistics: we just think there is a “collapse” in possibilities when super-positioned information becomes to mixed up for us to remix. You're ignoring

> Again statistics: we just think there is a “collapse” in possibilities when super-positioned information becomes to mixed up for us to remix. You're ignoring all of the major problems which require additional assumptions for MWI to appear so parsimonious. The biggest of which being the preferred basis problem: a quantum system isn't just in a superposition of states along one axis, it's in a superposition of states along the axis you choose to measure. If you and I both choose to measure the same system along different axis, we'll get different (but correlated) kinds of results about the same particle pair (which is the root of the Bell inequalities). Take an entangled pair of polarized photons, such that they must have opposite polarization, and send one towards you and one towards me. You'll measure the polarization of your photon along some axis, and I'll pick an axis that is 30% off yours. If we repeat the experiment many times, we'll conclude that percent of photons was polarized along the axis we each chose, and some percent was perpendicular. The percentages will be different, of course, and if we compare measurement results for individual events, we'll find that they correlate perfectly. But what can't be done, even in principle, is decide along which axis the photons were "actually" polarized. So, the problem for MWI is: how come classical objects have real properties independent of measurement choice, and they all happen to have properties along the same axis, given that the quantum objects they're made of don't, and there is no collapse? And this can't be explained away by statistics or entropy, because the amplitude of the wave function in QM is the same regardless of the choice of measurement axis. Even decoherence doesn't solve this problem, because lack of self-interaction doesn't affect the choice of basis. The other problems with MWI have to do with the very notion of doing probability calculations, and then statistics based on them, in a perfectly deterministic world where every outcome of every experiment is fully realized. If you flip a coin and both sides come up, how can you tell if the coin is biased or not? Or, since you prefer the quantity of information concept, in the MWI it seems that there is 0 information from any experimental result, because you know ahead of performing the experiment that all of the possible results will happen with probability 1 (in some "branch"). So yes, information is conserved: it's always 0.

Lammy 2y ago
When the object enters the timestream, time begins to correct itself. Let me use this example: Imagine four balls on the edge of a cliff. Say a direct copy of the ball nearest the cliff is sent to the back of the line of balls and takes the place of the first ball. The formerly first ball becomes the second, the second becomes the third, and the fourth falls off the cliff. Time works the same way.
Nevermark 2y ago
Quantum field equations capture entanglement. Measurement choice impacts the field equations, because you are field equations too. So none of those problems exist. Just interpret the field equations as they stand. Yes, new information is information is conserved, if everything is predictable. Which the field equations are. That would not be true if collapse was real, as that would impact the system with new, previously unknown, inherently unpredictable information. (The fact that we as big things end up experiencing what looks like a collapse is explained by the field equations and the statistics of how quickly information, not carefully controlled, gets dispersed. At this point in the history of physics, we should be able to discard extra explanations for our experiences that are already completely and exhaustively explained by the well tested laws. The fact that the explanation requires thinking about things differently than ordinary experience, isn’t an excuse for wedging poorly characterized and completely unnecessary fudge effects as shims into our intuition gaps. I am, of course, not arguing that collapse isn’t a useful concept, with many pervasive practical uses when full systems are not being modeled.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  > Measurement choice impacts the field equations, because you are field equations too. This sounds nice, but doesn't actually work if you try to apply it in practice, because however many experiments you'll perform on classical objects, you'll only ever observe properties for one basis of measurement, whereas you'll get different results for different bases for quantum objects. In other words, how come when I observe a single atom, I can see it in a state like (1/sqrt(2))|spin up> + (1/sqrt(2))|spin down>, but I can never observe a basket ball in a similar state? If it were just a matter of my field equations happening to only match certain kinds of states, that should apply exactly as much to a single atom as it would to ~6,022*10^23 atoms.

Lammy 2y ago

When the object enters the timestream, time begins to correct itself. Let me use this example: Imagine four balls on the edge of a cliff. Say a direct copy of the ball nearest the cliff is sent to the back of the line of balls and takes the place of the first ball. The formerly first ball becomes the second, the second becomes the third, and the fourth falls off the cliff. Time works the same way.

Nevermark 2y ago

Quantum field equations capture entanglement. Measurement choice impacts the field equations, because you are field equations too. So none of those problems exist. Just interpret the field equations as they stand. Yes, new information is information is conserved, if everything is predictable. Which the field equations are. That would not be true if collapse was real, as that would impact the system with new, previously unknown, inherently unpredictable information. (The fact that we as big things end up experiencing what looks like a collapse is explained by the field equations and the statistics of how quickly information, not carefully controlled, gets dispersed. At this point in the history of physics, we should be able to discard extra explanations for our experiences that are already completely and exhaustively explained by the well tested laws. The fact that the explanation requires thinking about things differently than ordinary experience, isn’t an excuse for wedging poorly characterized and completely unnecessary fudge effects as shims into our intuition gaps. I am, of course, not arguing that collapse isn’t a useful concept, with many pervasive practical uses when full systems are not being modeled.

tsimionescu 2y ago
> Measurement choice impacts the field equations, because you are field equations too. This sounds nice, but doesn't actually work if you try to apply it in practice, because however many experiments you'll perform on classical objects, you'll only ever observe properties for one basis of measurement, whereas you'll get different results for different bases for quantum objects. In other words, how come when I observe a single atom, I can see it in a state like (1/sqrt(2))|spin up> + (1/sqrt(2))|spin down>, but I can never observe a basket ball in a similar state? If it were just a matter of my field equations happening to only match certain kinds of states, that should apply exactly as much to a single atom as it would to ~6,022*10^23 atoms.