28 Apr 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtBut according to MWI shouldn't it be possible (in one of the futures) for him to get to the cheese without setting off the trap?
Only in so far as he might look as if he's worried about the trap.
Figuratively speaking, of course. I'm not suggesting he literally turns into a mouse in one of those futures... unless that IS a possibility, in which case I AM suggesting this.
28 Apr 16
Originally posted by apathistI am not an apologetic for MWI. All I have done is try to explain it to you because you clearly don't get it and don't want to get it. I personally don't think it reflects reality in any way. But that it no reason to deliberately and consistently misunderstand it as you have been doing.
It's interesting to compare the two main apologetics for it in this thread.
Confirming that the idea of our world having only one particular future must be fatal to MWI.
Not fatal, just contradictory. Your statement is as stupid as saying 'constant time must be fatal to relativity'. The central fact of relativity is that time is not constant and the central fact of MWI is that there isn't a single future.
28 Apr 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadI understand it fine. I just analyze in light of some basic facts you wish to ignore.
I am not an apologetic for MWI. All I have done is try to explain it to you because you clearly don't get it and don't want to get it. I personally don't think it reflects reality in any way. But that it no reason to deliberately and consistently misunderstand it as you have been doing.
[b]Confirming that the idea of our world having [i]only one partic ...[text shortened]... ty is that time is not constant and the central fact of MWI is that there isn't a single future.
Comparing the MWI to relativity theory is blatant dishonesty. This universe has only one future, a fact easily demonstrated - simply observe the result of the quantum event! The MWI invents other universes to fill the other branches.
It is you who willfully pretends to not understand, and it is you holding a stupid opinion. Your ego is too big for you to admit it. You are very smart, and I'll listen to you on any subject, but I'm aware of your handicap and your ability to be very wrong.
29 Apr 16
Originally posted by apathistHow do you know that this universe has only one future? That you've prepared a quantum particle in a linear superposition of states and then done an experiment and observed it as being in one of those states does not entail that there isn't a parallel universe where your counterpart has measured it to be in a different state. I don't think you've got epistemological grounds for making that claim.
I understand it fine. I just analyze in light of some basic facts you wish to ignore.
Comparing the MWI to relativity theory is blatant dishonesty. This universe has only one future, a fact easily demonstrated - simply observe the result of the quantum event! The MWI invents other universes to fill the other branches.
It is you who willfully pr ...[text shortened]... listen to you on any subject, but I'm aware of your handicap and your ability to be very wrong.
29 Apr 16
Originally posted by apathistNo, you clearly do not.
I understand it fine.
Comparing the MWI to relativity theory is blatant dishonesty.
No, it isn't. What do you believe was 'dishonest' about my comparison?
This universe has only one future, a fact easily demonstrated - simply observe the result of the quantum event! The MWI invents other universes to fill the other branches.
No, it doesn't. This proves without a doubt that you do not understand the MWI.
It is you who willfully pretends to not understand, and it is you holding a stupid opinion.
I do not believe the MWI represents reality and have never claimed so. All I have tried to do is explain it to you. Telling me I hold a 'stupid opinion' because you don't like the MWI is ridiculous in the extreme.
Your ego is too big for you to admit it. You are very smart, and I'll listen to you on any subject, but I'm aware of your handicap and your ability to be very wrong.
Except in this case, I am not wrong, and I can prove it with references if you like demonstrating beyond any shadow of a doubt that what I have said about the MWI is an accurate representation of the theory, and that what you have said is not.
Originally posted by apathistFalse inference; us observing an outcome is merely consistent with us experiencing going to observe one particular outcome in one possible future; it does not demonstrate there cannot also be other possible futures with differing observed mutually exclusive outcomes observed by us.
I This universe has only one future, a fact easily demonstrated - simply observe the result of the quantum event!
In one possible future, I may observe outcome p; in another possible future, I may observe not outcome p. In neither of those two futures do I observe both p and not p, but that fact doesn't demonstrate only one of those futures exists.
06 May 16
Originally posted by humyThat doesn't work. I accept for argument that the other branches would exist. But we would not be there to observe them. We are stuck in this branch. Which, of all the branches, is the only one that existed before the branching.
False inference; us observing an outcome is merely consistent with us experiencing going to observe one particular outcome in one possible future; it does not demonstrate there cannot also be other possible futures with differing observed mutually exclusive outcomes observed by us.
In one possible future, I may observe outcome p; in another possible future, I ...[text shortened]... I observe both p and not p, but that fact doesn't demonstrate only one of those futures exists.
06 May 16
Originally posted by twhitehead...I agree. You represent the interpretation well (it is not a theory, though), while my view analyzes the interpretation using a method that is not part of that interpretation.
Except in this case, I am not wrong, and I can prove it with references if you like demonstrating beyond any shadow of a doubt that what I have said about the MWI is an accurate representation of the theory, and that what you have said is not.[/b]
You came to this fight with one bullet - which you then dudified, of your own free will. I'm saying your defense is that we would exist in all the branches, but you admit that actually we wouldn't.
In this thread I've shown that the deterministic defense against the probabilistic nature of quantum reality is a fail. Next I'll look at the "transporter" class of thought experiments and show that mental reality transcends physical reality. Maybe I reach too high. But it'll be fun, right?
06 May 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI don't deny that someone else would measure as you say. I deny that I'm anywhere else but here.
How do you know that this universe has only one future? That you've prepared a quantum particle in a linear superposition of states and then done an experiment and observed it as being in one of those states does not entail that there isn't a parallel universe where your counterpart has measured it to be in a different state. I don't think you've got epistemological grounds for making that claim.
You people, your cups are so full, it clogs your reading comprehension skills.
06 May 16
Originally posted by apathistWhich is clearly an irrational thing to do. You cannot honestly analyse an interpretation while misrepresenting the interpretation.
I agree. You represent the interpretation well (it is not a theory, though), while my view analyzes the interpretation using a method that is not part of that interpretation.
You came to this fight with one bullet - which you then dudified, of your own free will. I'm saying your defense is that we would exist in all the branches, but you admit that actually we wouldn't.
Incoherent bable wont get you out of the fact that you either don't understand the MWI or don't want to understand it and continue to misrepresent it and attack a strawman of your own making.
06 May 16
Originally posted by apathistOur counterparts on the other hand would be there to observe them. Your argument is akin to that of an identical twin claiming that he is the true individual and his twin is only a clone.
That doesn't work. I accept for argument that the other branches would exist. But we would not be there to observe them. We are stuck in this branch. Which, of all the branches, is the only one that existed before the branching.
16 May 16
Originally posted by twhitehead...The MWI takes the apparent indeterminate nature of quantum events and suggests that when such a quantum event occurs, every possible outcome actually happens, and so the universe branches into multiple universes, occupying the same space but at different dimensional frequencies or something, identical except for the outcome of that quantum event.
Incoherent bable wont get you out of the fact that you either don't understand the MWI or don't want to understand it and continue to misrepresent it and attack a strawman of your own making.[/b]
I get that idea. I see how it rescues determinism from the suggestion that reality appears to be probabilistic. If I don't have a layman's understanding of the MWI, explain where I err please.
You argue that when the universe branches, the people in the branches each feel exactly as if they existed in the universe before it branched - regardless of which branch they find themselves in. They all are conscious, they all remember being in the universe before the branching - so none of them have exclusive claim to being from the original universe
I understand your argument. I see how the various branches have people who remember being in the original universe. If I'm misrepresenting your position, explain where I err please.
16 May 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThere must be a way to get at the root issue here.
Our counterparts on the other hand would be there to observe them. Your argument is akin to that of an identical twin claiming that he is the true individual and his twin is only a clone.
Carbon atoms are interchangeable. They all have the same properties, qualities, characteristics, etc. You are treating people as if they were interchangeable elemental atoms. Am I wrong about that?