<div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:52 AM <efc@swisscows.email> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hello Jason,<br>
<br>
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023, Jason Resch wrote:<br>
<br>
> > I believe Alain Aspect's experiments demonstrating the EPR (spooky action, and violation of Bell's inequalities) have<br>
> been replicated<br>
> > numerous times. It just won the Nobel prize last year.<br>
><br>
> But spooky action is just one phenomenon. It does not tell us anything<br>
> about which interpretation is true, or even, if there are other<br>
> interpretations yet to be made up, etc.<br>
> <br>
> It tells us one thing quite clearly:<br>
> <br>
> If relativity is true (i.e., nothing can travel faster than light) then measurements do not have single outcomes (i.e., there are<br>
> many worlds).<br>
<br>
Well, I'd probably add "true as currently understood today".</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Perhaps both QM and Relativity are false. But if the only way for them to both be true is with MW.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Could also<br>
be that this serves as a starting point which will enable some genius to<br>
come up with a better explanation. Either saving Einsteins theory, or<br>
coming up with a new one. But it's just speculation from my side, so I<br>
definitely won't be able to tell you any "hows".</blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> So Aspect's result's are quite extraordinary. He proved that either relativity is false, or, that there are multiple universes.<br>
> <br>
> This is because if experiments have multiple outcomes, there is no need for any effect to travel faster than light to explain the<br>
> Bell inequalities. MW can explain all the observations via local interactions that travel at the speed of light or slower.<br>
<br>
Maybe the Bell inequalities is the part that needs restatement? Sounds<br>
like a component in the logical chain that might or might not be<br>
susceptible to rethinking or revisioning.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It is a purely mathematical result, written as a mathematical proof. This video explains it well: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OM0jSTeeBg">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OM0jSTeeBg</a></div><div>You do not need any advanced math, (just counting and factions), to be able to work out the proof for yourself. This video, a bit longer, shows how anyone could do this themself: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RiAxvb_qI4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RiAxvb_qI4</a> and see there is no way to get the observed correlations using hidden variables. You either need instantaneous communication or, you must give up the idea that experiments/observations only have single outcomes.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> BTW, this is an interesting exercise to go through, to consider, if MW had been proposed first, would anyone have advocated for CI:<br>
> <br>
> <a href="https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WqGCaRhib42dhKWRL/if-many-worlds-had-come-first" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WqGCaRhib42dhKWRL/if-many-worlds-had-come-first</a><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Everett's<br>
> > paper, he would have embraced it wholeheartedly.<br>
><br>
> Maybe. As far as I can see, we then have proof of spooky action,<br>
> <br>
> Spooky action is only implied under collapse theories, which require that collapse be instantaneous across any distance of space in<br>
> order to explain the observed results.<br>
> There is no spooky action under MW.<br>
> <br>
><br>
> but<br>
> that does not afford us any knowledge about any isolated multiple<br>
> worlds.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> It does, if one believes in relativity. For if relativity is true then the only remaining answer to explain the outcome of Aspect's<br>
> experiment is many worlds.<br>
><br>
> For some, it does increase the degree of belief, for others, it<br>
> increases the degree of belief in their interpretation. But I think the<br>
> fact that MWI is not (currently) the consensus view, tells me that this<br>
> experiment is not conclusive.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> No one doubts Aspect's result.<br>
> <br>
> It's just some choose to abandon all that physics has held holy (relativity, causality, determinism, locality, realism, and<br>
> time-reversibility) while others, keep those things, read the math of QMs equations literally, and accept the idea that there could<br>
> be more than one of them.<br>
> <br>
><br>
> Btw, did you see the thread evolving around superdeterminism in the<br>
> other mailinglist?<br>
> <br>
> I didn't. Do you mean the extropolis list? I am not on it. Is it's archive online?<br>
<br>
Yes, that's the one. The thread is called Leggetts inequality. Have a<br>
look here:<br>
<a href="https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis/c/5I_zuthYMWQ/m/S6eyeePtAAAJ" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis/c/5I_zuthYMWQ/m/S6eyeePtAAAJ</a> .<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thanks, it is interesting.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
> I asked for a in depth discussion of other intepretations, and it seems<br>
> I got it!<br>
> <br>
> That's great. I would like to see it.<br>
<br>
See link above.<br>
<br>
><br>
> > > E) Only after the effect of Many-Worlds had been experimentally demonstrated<br>
> > > (i.e., no collapse by a conscious AI on a quantum<br>
> > > computer)<br>
> ><br>
> > I think here probably.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > There's nothing wrong with having a personal higher (or lower) burden of proof than others. I think it is somewhat of a<br>
> personality<br>
> > trait that determines how open-minded or skeptical a person is. <br>
><br>
> Probably. What I find interesting is if this trait differs as well<br>
> depending on the subject. I'm skeptical and I think in general, I have<br>
> very little trust in things and people outside of my family. Yes, it is<br>
> probably a personality trait.<br>
><br>
> > I think my thoughts here can be traced back to Kant. I also think that<br>
> > this clouds our judgment when we 3d beings are trying to wrap our heads<br>
> > around x dimensional things and other universes. On the other hand...<br>
> > what else can we do? The only other option open seem to be the "shut up<br>
> > and calculate" path and to remain forever (maybe!) agnostic.<br>
> ><br>
> > I guess you could toy with the idea of creating new languages, but our<br>
> > brains are still designed for 3d use, unless we move into science<br>
> > fiction such as Arrival, where the language actually rewires our brains<br>
> > to experience new realities. ;)<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > I think there is much more to this than is generally accepted.<br>
><br>
> Maybe we have an expert linguist on the list who could fill us in? =)<br>
><br>
> > "One’s first impression might be that the ruliad effectively contains many possible “parallel universes”, and that we<br>
> have<br>
> > selected ourselves into one of these, perhaps as a result of our particular characteristics. But in fact the ruliad<br>
> isn’t about<br>
> > “parallel universes”, it’s about universes that are entangled at the finest possible level. And an important<br>
> consequence of<br>
> > this is that it means we’re not “stuck in a particular parallel universe”. Instead, we can expect that by somehow<br>
> “changing our<br>
> > point of view”, we can effectively find ourselves in a “different universe”."<br>
> > -- Stephen Wolfram in “The Concept of the Ruliad” (2021)<br>
><br>
> Did you read Wolframs book where he said he was going to rewrite science<br>
> and made some very bold claims? I think it is quite a big book, and I<br>
> would probably never understand it. He is quite math heavy I think.<br>
> <br>
> I have not read it. I think you are referring to "A New Kind of Science" ?<br>
<br>
Yes, that's the one. 1280 pages!<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Maybe AI will kindly summarize it for us. ;-)</div><div><br></div><div>Jason</div><div><br></div></div></div>