tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post7373787747154016270..comments2024-03-18T17:28:44.693-07:00Comments on Rondam Ramblings: The trouble with shadow photonsRonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-91771303820105552292019-07-09T00:26:09.838-07:002019-07-09T00:26:09.838-07:00> At this point I feel the need to ask: what is...> At this point I feel the need to ask: what is your goal in this exchange? Are you trying to teach me something? Learn something from me? Persuade me of something (and, if so, what?) Jerk my chain?<br /><br />I'm just interested in the topic.<br /><br />> Also, are you the same Alan with whom I was corresponding on the FI mailing list?<br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />I didn't reply cuz Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17210261677010901017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-27894499356504289462019-07-08T15:33:30.534-07:002019-07-08T15:33:30.534-07:00Once more for the record, I just posted an extende...Once more for the record, I just posted an extended followup:<br /><br />http://blog.rongarret.info/2019/07/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html<br />Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-6101434919028064732019-07-06T09:13:02.423-07:002019-07-06T09:13:02.423-07:00@Alan:
> you haven't even criticised the a...@Alan:<br /><br />> you haven't even criticised the arguments in the paper<br /><br />That's true. It's because after you failed to respond to this question:, which I asked back in May...<br /><br />> At this point I feel the need to ask: what is your goal in this exchange? Are you trying to teach me something? Learn something from me? Persuade me of something (and, if so, whatRonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-85430340511091653372019-07-06T02:06:35.853-07:002019-07-06T02:06:35.853-07:00I quote from page 12 of the Wallace paper you chos...I quote from page 12 of the Wallace paper you chose to cite:<br /><br />"Solution continuity and branching indifference — and indeed problem continuity — can be understood in the same way, in terms of the limitations of any physically realisable agent. Any discontinuous preference order would require an agent to make arbitrarily precise distinctions between different acts, something which isAlanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17210261677010901017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-80074754374484745462019-07-05T18:35:12.869-07:002019-07-05T18:35:12.869-07:00@Elliot:
> Deutsch does *not* claim that one s...@Elliot:<br /><br />> Deutsch does *not* claim that one should be indifferent to what proportion of (a branch of) the multiverse something good or bad happens to versions of you in.<br /><br />I never said he did. That's not what "branching indifference" [1] means. Have you read the Wallace paper that I linked to above?<br /><br />[1] Since you are a stickler for detail, I Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-55903259084821222202019-07-05T16:19:05.662-07:002019-07-05T16:19:05.662-07:00> If I am going to care about "copies of m...> If I am going to care about "copies of me" *at all* then it is far from clear that I should be indifferent between having one of me receiving a reward and having N>1 of me receiving that same reward.<br /><br />Deutsch does *not* claim that one should be indifferent to what proportion of (a branch of) the multiverse something good or bad happens to versions of you in.xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14362370435432417320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-56440098438169924932019-07-05T16:14:02.335-07:002019-07-05T16:14:02.335-07:00Just for the historical record: I have now done a ...Just for the historical record: I have now done a very deep dive into this issue, which ended up <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0906.2718" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Wallace explicitly lays out the assumptions required for Deutsch's proof to carry through, and I dispute one of them: branch indifference. It is not at all clear, on the rhetoric of multiple worlds, that branch indifference holdsRonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-56222333169071302132019-05-18T14:21:06.171-07:002019-05-18T14:21:06.171-07:00@Alan:
> In order to refute his argument
Wow,...@Alan:<br /><br />> In order to refute his argument<br /><br />Wow, we have an enormous disconnect here. I wasn't trying to refute his argument. I was just trying to do a sanity check on whether or not I was anywhere close to *understanding* it. Why did it even enter your mind that I was trying to *refute* something in the comment to which you were responding?<br /><br />At this point IRonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-49462517695113327402019-05-18T11:26:04.275-07:002019-05-18T11:26:04.275-07:00> My initial understanding turns out to be comp...> My initial understanding turns out to be completely correct. Your criticism:<br />><br />>> you don't state what counts as being a rational agent or why that matters"<br />><br />> is invalid. *Deutsch* defines "rational decision maker" in his paper. <br /><br />I know that Deutsch defines what counts as rationality in decision theory in his paper. In order Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17210261677010901017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-56546968304808593102019-05-17T14:57:00.010-07:002019-05-17T14:57:00.010-07:00> If you want to give me or point me to an ELI5...> If you want to give me or point me to an ELI5 version that would be appreciated.<br /><br />Never mind, I found it on my own:<br /><br />http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/04/16/quantum-mechanics-and-decision-theory/<br /><br />My initial understanding turns out to be completely correct. Your criticism:<br /><br />"you don't state what counts as being a rational Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-67565805630724321142019-05-16T15:27:39.110-07:002019-05-16T15:27:39.110-07:00> I invoked probability because it is unproblem...> I invoked probability because it is unproblematic in the MWI. It is problematic in all the other interpretations.<br /><br />OK, I get that you believe that to be true. But you do understand that there is not a consensus on this, yes?<br /><br />> > Is that anywhere close to being correct?<br /><br />> No.<br /><br />OK, thanks for letting me know. I'll go back and give it a Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-82101268606619122662019-05-16T15:12:10.662-07:002019-05-16T15:12:10.662-07:00>> I now guess the reason you asked the ques...>> I now guess the reason you asked the question is you are unfamiliar with the literature<br />><br />> I knew about the paper you cited, but I'd never studied it in detail. But that's not the reason I asked. The reason I asked is that I wanted to see what you would cite as your justification.<br />><br />> Note that your justification is different from Alan's. AlanAlanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17210261677010901017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-62771741966279258392019-05-15T22:19:44.481-07:002019-05-15T22:19:44.481-07:00> I regard your unwillingness to use quotes in ...> I regard your unwillingness to use quotes in true ways to be a major problem.<br /><br />Those are scare quotes:<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes<br /><br />I'm sorry, Elliot, but I just can't deal with your level of nit-pickery. Good bye.<br />Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-2434272217499944272019-05-15T18:55:54.985-07:002019-05-15T18:55:54.985-07:00Since the paper doesn't use the word "coa...Since the paper doesn't use the word "coalesce", I regard your unwillingness to use quotes in true ways to be a major problem. I also find it strange that you're trying to differentiate my view from Alan's when I said I agree with Alan (and FYI DD, the paper author, also agrees with Alan about this).xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14362370435432417320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-19908201717709963652019-05-15T17:33:15.815-07:002019-05-15T17:33:15.815-07:00@Elliot:
> I now guess the reason you asked th...@Elliot:<br /><br />> I now guess the reason you asked the question is you are unfamiliar with the literature<br /><br />I knew about the paper you cited, but I'd never studied it in detail. But that's not the reason I asked. The reason I asked is that I wanted to see what you would cite as your justification.<br /><br />Note that your justification is different from Alan's. Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-17655454461907788962019-05-15T16:11:03.580-07:002019-05-15T16:11:03.580-07:00I agree with Alan, and FYI I would be more interes...I agree with Alan, and FYI I would be more interested in answering the question if I knew what the point of it was (where are you going with it).<br /><br />I now guess the reason you asked the question is you are unfamiliar with the literature, e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9906015xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14362370435432417320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-69502771056250929492019-05-15T16:01:09.971-07:002019-05-15T16:01:09.971-07:00@Alan:
Thanks very much for that analysis, but I ...@Alan:<br /><br />Thanks very much for that analysis, but I asked that question in service of preparing a response to Elliot, so I really need to know whether or not *he* would take the bet and why. In the MWI there are no probabilities. There are only (in this scenario) four universes. In two of them he wins $2 and in two of them he loses $1. All of this is deterministic, there are no Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-67851033983405035492019-05-15T14:46:47.399-07:002019-05-15T14:46:47.399-07:00Actually the probability is sin^2(1/2 degree), whi...Actually the probability is sin^2(1/2 degree), which is about 8*10^(-5), but the payoff is still approximately -$1 so I wouldn't take the bet.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17210261677010901017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-40017726681033514442019-05-15T14:33:41.944-07:002019-05-15T14:33:41.944-07:00>>>But here's a quick question for yo...>>>But here's a quick question for you to make sure we're on the same page with respect to MWI: if you and I conduct an EPR experiment with both of our measurements conducted along the same axis, how many universes do we end up with at the end of that process? What about if our measurements are conducted along axes that are misaligned by a small angle?<br />><br />>> 2 Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17210261677010901017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-2268035251168233832019-05-15T12:30:52.775-07:002019-05-15T12:30:52.775-07:00> I would think that if these papers contained ...> I would think that if these papers contained known errors (known to you but not me) that you would refer me to an existing paper instead of writing a post.<br /><br />If that were the case then yes, that is exactly what I would do. But you've neglected to consider a third possibility: that the papers contain errors that are known neither to you nor to me, but are known to someone. And Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-67532024444592158052019-05-14T00:21:50.148-07:002019-05-14T00:21:50.148-07:00> Responding to that is going to be *way* beyon...> Responding to that is going to be *way* beyond the scope of a comment. I'll have to write up a whole blog post on that.<br /><br />OK, though I would think that if these papers contained known errors (known to you but not me) that you would refer me to an existing paper instead of writing a post. Do you have something novel to say?<br /> <br />> what you mean by "fully local"xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14362370435432417320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-81314602953295991812019-05-13T18:07:08.368-07:002019-05-13T18:07:08.368-07:00> The phrase “wave(s) of differentiation" ...> The phrase “wave(s) of differentiation" is used in BoI 13 times<br /><br />Ah. Sorry, I misunderstood. I read the final capital I as a lower-case L and thought you had written "Bol" and that this was someone's name. I didn't realize it was an acronym for The Beginning of Infinity. I also thought that "differentiation" in this context was referring to Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-78516014623861445972019-05-13T14:21:50.209-07:002019-05-13T14:21:50.209-07:00>> do you remember the stuff about waves of ...>> do you remember the stuff about waves of differentiation from BoI?<br /><br />> I have no idea what you're referring to here.<br /><br />The phrase “wave(s) of differentiation" is used in BoI 13 times. It's important to DD's explanation of the multiverse and to the issues we’re talking about. Please reread ch 11 before trying to continue this discussion.<br /><br />&xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14362370435432417320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-15060847831863478932019-05-13T12:49:22.546-07:002019-05-13T12:49:22.546-07:00> All influence is local
That depends on what ...> All influence is local<br /><br />That depends on what you mean by "influence". QM has some inherently non-local aspects, c.f. Bell's theorem.<br /><br />> Macroscopic objects (like labs, detectors or universes) have no direct role in QM<br /><br />Again, this depends on what you mean. The macroscopic configuration of the/a universe is what determines the Hamiltonian of a Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-46128305093874503982019-05-13T12:36:20.055-07:002019-05-13T12:36:20.055-07:00> > [Multiple universes] are connected or di...> > [Multiple universes] are connected or disconnected on a microscopic level by virtue of their microscopic configuration<br /><br />> No. Please re-read the post paying particular attention to paragraph that begins, "The fact that adding detectors destroys interference is fatal for the theory of shadow photons," as well as the subsequent two paragraphs.<br /><br />All xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14362370435432417320noreply@blogger.com