[ExI] Probability is "subjectively objective".

Stathis Papaioannou stathisp at gmail.com
Thu Jul 17 11:00:30 UTC 2008


2008/7/17 John K Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:

> Lee I've know that "a simultaneous event" is not a unique concept and
> depends entirely on the frame of reference since my first year of high
> school, before that probably. At the end of the thought experiment we are
> both in the same frame of reference; we must
> be because we can shake hands. We BOTH agree that
> at the start we were VERY far apart and we BOTH remember what our particles
> were doing back then,
> and we BOTH agree how far apart those events were in
> space-time, and we BOTH agree that by using common
> sense reasoning two particles at that huge distance in space-time should
> have no causal relationship with
> each other.
>
> And yet when we compare records we find that our particles were doing the
> exact same thing when they had no business doing so. Bohr found that to be
> weird,
> so did Feynman, so do I. You say you have such a deep understanding of this
> subject that it all fits
> together in your mind, if true then you Sir are extraordinary.

It's weird if you assume there is only one real world. You might ask,
even if there are multiple worlds, why should you end up meeting with
the co-experimenter who makes the matching measurement rather than one
of the other co-experimenters in another world? One answer could be,
for the same reason that when you put an item in a box and walk away
you will find yourself in a world where it's still in the box later,
rather than in one of the other worlds where you put it under the bed.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list