[ExI] Probability is "subjectively objective".

[Lee Corbin]

John Clark writes

> "Bryan Bishop" <kanzure at gmail.com>
> 
>> What is the most striking in Feynman's version of quantum
>> mechanics is his impatience with the wave-particle duality
> 
> I'd call it wonder not impatience. And I remind you that it was
> Feynman who said "I think it's safe to say nobody understands
> Quantum Mechanics".

He's been rightly criticized for that. He's holding up too
highly some weird notion of "understands".  There are
plenty of people who've been doing QM calculations
all their lives and understand what they're doing. Some
of those people are also comfortable with MWI.
I would say that David Deutsch understands quantum 
mechanics. 

>> the results of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) Paradox,
>> discussed above. Distant particles, whose properties have
>> some indeterminate quantum > correlation, "know"
>> instantaneously what happens to the other particles
> 
> Yes.

No.  Was ist das "instantaneously"?   That kind of idea is
reference-frame dependent.  All that's happening is that the
outcome of a measurement *here* is correlated with the
outcome of a measurement *there*.  

> > its collapse is instantaneous, violating Special Relativity.
> 
> No. Special Relativity didn't say nothing could travel faster than light, it
> only said matter, energy, or information can't. Yes I can mess with a
> particle here and instantly

Choke!  Gasp!

> change a particle on the other side of the universe, but whatever is
> going on between those 2 particles it's not made of matter or energy
> nor can you use it to send information.

Nothing is "going on" between the two particles.  Measurements
just happen to end up correlated, for, among other reasons, to
remain consistent with conservation laws, handedness, parity,
and who knows what.

Damien wrote

> Lee wrote:
> 
>>it can be argued that [in Many Worlds accounts]
>>there are only two universes (not four) that result because in
>>either of the two other (absent) universes, youse guys would
>>find that the law of angular momentum had been violated. And
>>we can't have that.
> 
> Why can't we have that?

Is nothing sacred?   I ask you, is NOTHING sacred???

First you gave up the bosom of the Church, then went so far
as to question God's existence.  Fine.  But keep your hands
off our Holy Conservation of Angular Momentum.  Man
was not meant to question some things.

The next thing I know, you'll be questioning Mr. Hindbutt's
Uncertainty Principle itself!  Things just *are* that way, dammit.

Lee

> We might not ever *observe* that, and this 
> regularity becomes codified as a "law" but it's not (on the face of 
> it) a *performative*, it has no *force*, it's just an observation 
> that calls for a deeper causal explanation. I know it probably 
> follows from symmetry constraints, but in a universe with speed of 
> light restrictions this still leaves a gaping explanatory hole.