<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Stuart LaForge <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:avant@sollegro.com" target="_blank">avant@sollegro.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class="gmail-">Jason Resch wrote:<br>
<Are you familiar with:<br>
<a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/<wbr>wiki/Compatibilism</a> ?<br>
</span>[...]<br>
<span class="gmail-">I am a compatibilist when it comes to freewill and determinism.><br>
<br>
</span>Thanks for the link, I will look into it.<br>
<span class="gmail-"><br>
Jason Resch wrote:<br>
<Someone earlier stated Bell's Inequality implies we have to give up one<br>
of: locality, determinism, or realism. This list is incomplete, we must<br>
give up one of: locality, determinism, realism, or counterfactual<br>
definiteness.<br>
Counterfactual definiteness means experiments have only one outcome. MWI<br>
gives up counterfactual definiteness and retains locality, determinism and<br>
realism.><br>
<br>
</span>My understanding of counterfactual definiteness is that it is very<br>
specific type of realism. It is the notion that objects have measurable<br>
properties that have a definite value even if measurements are not made.<br>
<br>
For example, whenever you list your weight on a driver's license<br>
application without weighing yourself beforehand, you are assuming a<br>
counterfactual definiteness to your weight. Even if you were off by a few<br>
pounds, the idea is that if you were to weigh yourself, you would measure<br>
a certain weight and that's how much you actually weigh even if you didn't<br>
bother weighing yourself.<br>
<br>
If you give up counterfactual definiteness, it means you don't have a<br>
weight when you are not standing on a scale. So I am not sure what you<br>
mean by saying that "MWI gives up counterfactual definiteness".<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It is giving up the part that only one possible result will be measured for a particular value. I would point you towards this explanation for question 32 from the many worlds FAQ ( <a href="http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints/manyworlds.html">http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints/manyworlds.html</a> ):</div><div><br></div></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">The decomposition into four worlds is forced and unambiguous after</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">communication with the remote system. Until the two observers</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">communicated their results to each other they were each unsplit by each</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">others' measurements, although their own local measurements had split</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">themselves. The splitting is a local process that is causally</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">transmitted from system to system at light or sub-light speeds. (This</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">is a point that Everett stressed about Einstein's remark about the</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">observations of a mouse, in the Copenhagen interpretation, collapsing</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">the wavefunction of the universe. Everett observed that it is the mouse</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">that's split by its observation of the rest of the universe. The rest</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">of the universe is unaffected and unsplit.)</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">When all communication is complete the worlds have finally decomposed</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">or decohered from each other. Each world contains a consistent set of</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">observers, records and electrons, in perfect agreement with the</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">predictions of standard QM. Further observations of the electrons will</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">agree with the earlier ones and so each observer, in each world, can</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">henceforth regard the electron's wavefunction as having collapsed to</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">match the historically recorded, locally observed values. This</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">justifies our operational adoption of the collapse of the wavefunction</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">upon measurement, without having to strain our credibility by believing</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">that it actually happens.</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">To recap. Many-worlds is local and deterministic. Local measurements</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">split local systems (including observers) in a subjectively random</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">fashion; distant systems are only split when the causally transmitted</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">effects of the local interactions reach them. We have not assumed any</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">non-local FTL effects, yet we have reproduced the standard predictions</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">of QM.</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">So where did Bell and Eberhard go wrong? They thought that all theories</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">that reproduced the standard predictions must be non-local. It has been</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">pointed out by both Albert [A] and Cramer [C] (who both support</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">different interpretations of QM) that Bell and Eberhard had implicity</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">assumed that every possible measurement - even if not performed - would</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">have yielded a *single* definite result. This assumption is called</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">contra-factual definiteness or CFD [S]. What Bell and Eberhard really</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">proved was that every quantum theory must either violate locality *or*</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">CFD. Many-worlds with its multiplicity of results in different worlds</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">violates CFD, of course, and thus can be local.</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">Thus many-worlds is the only local quantum theory in accord with the</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">standard predictions of QM and, so far, with experiment.</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">[A] David Z Albert, _Bohm's Alternative to Quantum Mechanics_</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">Scientific American (May 1994)</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">[As] Alain Aspect, J Dalibard, G Roger _Experimental test of Bell's</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">inequalities using time-varying analyzers_ Physical Review Letters</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">Vol 49 #25 1804 (1982).</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">[C] John G Cramer _The transactional interpretation of quantum</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">mechanics_ Reviews of Modern Physics Vol 58 #3 647-687 (1986)</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">[B] John S Bell: _On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox_ Physics 1</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">#3 195-200 (1964).</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">[E] Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, Nathan Rosen: _Can</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">complete?_ Physical Review Vol 41 777-780 (15 May 1935).</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">[S] Henry P Stapp _S-matrix interpretation of quantum-theory_ Physical</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"ms sans serif";font-size:medium">Review D Vol 3 #6 1303 (1971)</span></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div></div></div></blockquote>There is also this article which seems to cover exactly the subject at hand: <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.3827.pdf">https://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.3827.pdf</a><br><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
My biggest concern with MWI is that it requires the Universal Wave</blockquote><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Function to be objectively real, not merely a mathematical abstraction. So<br>
if the UWF is objectively real then that means the infinite-dimensional<br>
Hilbert space that describes it is objectively real. So where is this<br>
gigantic Hilbert space hiding? Why do we only perceive 3+1 dimensions in a<br>
multiverse controlled by an infinite dimensional Wave Function? What is<br>
the relationship of our percievable space-time to the Universal Wave<br>
Function and the Hilbert space in which It dwelleth?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The wave function is a standard assumption of all QM theories/interpretations that accurately describes the evolution of any isolated system. The <i>universal</i> wave function just treats the entire universe as an isolated system, and applies the regular rules of QM to determine how it evolves.</div><div><br></div><div>Jason</div><div> </div></div></div></div>