Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Macroscopic Emergence in MWI worlds

Expand Messages
  • Rami Rustom
    ... fyi, i read your emails about mwi and never know what you re asking. so its a problem for me to answer you. for example, I don t understand why you care
    Message 1 of 29 , Aug 24, 2013
      On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 10:40 AM, hibbsa <hibbsa@...> wrote:
      > --- In Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com, Gary Oberbrunner <garyo@...> wrote:
      >> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM, hibbsa <hibbsa@...> wrote:
      >> >
      >> > ...
      >> > >
      >> > > > In which case are you willing to provide a plausible description for how
      >> > > > quantum divergence can become part of an effect that goes on result in
      >> > > > macroscopic divergence.
      >> > > >
      >> > >
      >> > > I don't know. What is "quantum divergence"? Is it just that in some
      >> > > worlds the photon is emitted at t_1, and at some others at t_2? It's not a
      >> > > term I'm familiar with.
      >> >
      >> > the term wasn't correct, but we had a context and there was a key work
      >> > divergence. I was talking about divergence in the multiverse.
      >> >
      >> OK -- divergence like I meant above, right? Where a photon is emitted at
      >> two different times in different worlds? In that case, Schroedinger's Cat
      >> is the canonical example of macroscopic amplification of a quantum effect.
      >> But so is a geiger counter, and there are many others. Do those serve?
      > These examples don't qualify because they are human/biology dependent (right at the start I did exclude this realm if you want to go back and check) We already know divergence is easy to demonstrate in that realm. But what about outside that realm? Deutsch describes a wave spreading out at the speed of light driving the process of divergence onward. But at what stage does the macroscopic world look different between universes, and why?
      > I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I made it clear I expect it does. But it should be possible to explain consistent with Deutsch's explanation of emergence. I mean, using the vocabularly of emergence. This shouldn't be a problem, and it's all I've been asking for.

      fyi, i read your emails about mwi and never know what you're asking.
      so its a problem for me to answer you.

      for example, I don't understand why you care about vocabulary. why do
      you think that's important to solving your problem?

      -- Rami Rustom
    • Ismail Atalay
      I know it has been quite a while after this discussion and I stayed away from the topic. Nevertheless, just to clarify my position, I think my ideas below
      Message 2 of 29 , Jul 13, 2014
        I know it has been quite a while after this discussion and I stayed away from the topic.

        Nevertheless, just to clarify my position, I think my ideas below seems to bear resemblence the the relational framework of QM (as initiated by Borelli in 1996 and of which I did not have absolutely no previous information). I recently learned about RQM

        What I call as "convergence field" seems to correspond to "information". "Interaction with convergence field" means information acquired through interaction of two QM systems. "Internal change detection" capability corresponds information acquisition capability of a measurement device. 

        I am sad that I could not formulate it neatly and from purely information theoretical point of view. But I think my initial idea of the electron in double slit experiment has its own perspective/experience similar to double slit and to fluorescent screen is somewhat close to relational/perspective based QM. When total "uncertainty" (no information) is there, the electron experiences all physically possible combinations, it is only when there is information in an observer system, the electron physics are shaped accordingly wrt the acquired information through interaction/measurement.

        Ismail Atalay

        On Thursday, 22 August 2013, 18:18, Ismail Atalay <i_c_atalay@...> wrote:

        >On 20 August 2013 13:51 Alan Forrester  wrote:
        >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:53 PM, hibbsa <hibbsa@...> wrote:

        >> Isn't "QM minus MWI" = Copenhagen? In other words by "subtracting" MWI,
        >> you're really adding in the collapse postulate, since MWI is just QM
        >> without collapse.

        I disagree with that. I would say QM=MWI+"something else". And this "something else" is very tightly and deeply intertwined with MWI. It is so tight that MWI does not have an independent ontological existence.

        >> Are you really just saying that MWI is untestable? I.e. that it doesn't
        >> make an refutable predictions? That's a valid criticism. I think IF we
        clear="none">>> can build a large-scale quantum computer, such that it can do more than a
        >> theoretical perfectly efficient computer occupying the same spacetime, that
        >> would be a refutation of Copenhagen, since all that computation has to be
        >> done somewhere.
        MWI automatically becomes untestable when one accepts that the it does not have an independent ontological existence. This means that MWI only relevant through its interaction and interplay with this "something else"

        >The CI makes no predictions. The CI makes ad hoc modifications of QM
        >and the precise details of what predictions QM will make depend on the
        >precise details of the modifications. But there is no explanation of
        >those precise details because if such an explanation existed the
        >theory wouldn't be ad hoc. So the CI makes no predictions.
        >For example, if the wave function collapses the precise of details of
        >where and how that happens will affect the results of experiments. But
        >the problem of why we can't see other versions of objects around us
        >has been solved by decoherence, so there is no need for the collapse
        >and no explanation of where and how it happens.
        I agree. 

        >As a result, the CI can't be used to explain anything about emergence.
        >The other "interpretations" of QM have similar problems.
        Emergence issue could only be solved if we concentrate on physical principles that makes convergence possible within the background provided by SWE and MWI. 
        Lets' assume there is some kind of exotic "convergence" field in physical material. So QM=MWI+convergence field
        If we go back to double-slit experiment, we have an electron that is sent towards an apparatus (double slit and fluorescent screen). The big question is why this electron (as one particle) shifts to wave behavior when detached from the electron gun whereas when I break the gun into two macro pieces I do not see any QM behavior in the part that is detached from the gun.
         It looks like the electron got out of the electron guns' convergence field (that make converge the gun as a macroscopic object) and could not converge on its own now (can not form a convergence field). It only needs to collide with the fluorescent screen and with this interaction it joins the convergence field of the screen (from this we deduce that convergence fields could grow and include new particles upon interaction) and thus materializes accordingly. 
        So why a single electron could not converge on its own but some large macro part of the electron gun could be detached without any convergence problem?
        I think the answer lies in the electron guns "interaction" with its surroundings. The detachment of the electron from the electron gun caused the electron remaining outside any (macro) convergence field.  This because the electron (just after it detachment) is not having any interaction with any already existing "macro" convergence field. Once outside the convergence field, MWI/SWE only aspect dominates until it interacts with another (macro) convergence field (that would the slit or the screen). 
        Here by "interaction" I mean all types of interactions with physical surroundings not only the electron colliding to a macro object. For example photons colliding to the electron and changing directions is also a type of interaction This might be because the emitter of the photon, the photon itself and the receiver still remains within one holistic convergence field. So convergence fields are  formed by their "internal change detection" capability as a whole.
        In this vein, a large macro chunk could never get out of interaction with the (macro) convergence fields around it and thus could never exhibit MWI/SWE only property. But for an electron, it is possible that interaction with surrounding convergence fields is non-existent. 
        When this electron interacts with the double slit, the interplay between MWI/SWE and convergence field immediately begins. Double slit without "internal change detection" capability wrt to some fired electrons could not act as convergence field (thus wave behavior is kept). Double slit with "internal change detection" capability wrt to fired electrons acts as a convergence field (thus wave behavior disappears upon interaction)
        If this theory of mine is correct, "convergence fields" are dynamic physical structures that could grow/shrink and are defined by their internal change detection capability and holistic behavior.
        All above should be seen as an effort to explain my way of approaching to the problem.
        ─░smail Atalay 

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.