Recent content by GofG

So I've been playing some Kerbal Space Program, and it's taught me a couple things. Primarily, that circularizing an orbit (bringing its eccentricity down to near 0) is a matter of extremely precise engineering, and that matching planes with another satellite's orbit is also extremely...

I'm totaling up all of the worlds and counting those frequencies.

I'd like to see replication, and in particular I'd like to see a replication where states 0 and 4 aren't thrown away. I suspect that when Alice communicates to Victor her bell-state measurement (and, therefore, entangles herself with Victor's self in the same causal slice of the wavefunction)...

But if the decoherence happens, if it doesn't end, then there are two brains, both experiencing different things. One experiences the photon going left, one experiences the photon going right. Both of those brains are real, both of those brains are actually experiencing the events. That's...

Yes: that postulate is the Born probabilities, which state that the probability of experiencing a given brain is equal to the squared modulus of the thickness/density of that brain's amplitude blob. I have already admitted to this postulate. But what is built-in to Schrödinger's equation is...

What do you mean by this? Can you give me an example in terms of, say, polarized photons?

Then what exactly was your complaint? What is that postulate? This comes from a disagreement over the definition of the word "probability". I'm a Bayesian, not a frequentist, so I use the word "probability" to describe my uncertainty as to what I'm going to experience, not the behavior...

I just realized that you're not talking about the usual Bell's Theorem-style problem. You're simply talking about regular old particle interactions. The thing is, for Schrödinger's equation to describe p1 and p2 (the proton and the electron), then they have to already be entangled. If they're...

Huh? There is no blob of amplitude which represents a brain that perceives a single photon going both left and right; that's what decoherence means. If the two states of the photon, the two blobs of amplitude (one at RIGHT and one at LEFT) are decohered, then the two brains that observe the two...

That problem goes away in manyworlds, because the interactions aren't happening in real-time; when you interact with one of a pair of thusly-entangled particles, you aren't learning information about the other particle at a faster-than-light speed, and you aren't learning about any kind of...

Alright, I admit that decoherence does not equal manyworlds, but that's not what I'm saying. I don't see how MWI makes any assumptions. It seems to cleanly solve the measurement problem (by saying that there is no collapse, and that there is a version of you who sees all possible outcomes)...

What "problems" are you talking about? The Born probabilities? The Collapse postulate does not solve those either. By postulating collapse, you've added something new onto Schrödinger's equation that makes it strictly more complicated without increasing its predictive or explanatory value. In...

Sean Carroll says, in the page you linked: Quantum mechanics *is* manyworlds. If you want to believe something other than many worlds, you have to add something to quantum mechanics, like a "collapse postulate". So what I'm saying is, what evidence is there for adding something like a...

Decoherence is when two blobs of amplitude get separated from each other enough that their interaction approaches zero, correct? So if we have two particles whose positions are highly correlative of each other (either the particles are "both on the right" or "both on the left"), then they've...

Huh? I don't see how this "approach" (taking the math at face value) says that bodies should interact instantaneously. Can you give me an example? I just finished reading that paper... I don't quite understand what you're saying. QM as described by Schrödinger's Equation is deterministic; we...