Re: the Many Worlds Interpretation, etc.

On 06/01/2012 07:03 AM, Arkalen wrote:
On 01/06/12 10:55, Dale wrote:
isn't this statistically impossible

if any possibility of the possibility distribution has an outcome, has
100%, doesn't that leave the rest of the possibilities and a total
possibility of over 100%?

How so ? If one possibility has a probability of 1, then all the other
possibilities have a probability of 0. If you know an outcome happened,
then the probability of that outcome is 1 and the probability of all
other outcomes is 0. If you don't know an outcome happened yet, then all
the other probabilities may be over 0 but the probability of the outcome
that will actually happen isn't 1 (... seeing as you don't know which
outcome will actually happen).


if one gets to a 100% possibility without the others getting to 0% then you have more then 100%

Many Worlds says all go to 100%, all possibilities materialize



doesn't this apply to the Copenhagen Interpretation and the
Transactional also?

this leaves the wave equation as inadequate.

if you reverse the wave equation for a probability distribution you
don't get one particle nature. You get a set, or a distribution.

maybe we should start with sets. Maybe reality is not all real numbers.
I like to refer to real numbers as determinate numbers and imaginary
numbers as indeterminate since nothing is non-existential except the
null set. This means imaginary numbers are existential. And imaginations
are existential, if only in the brain.

Look, you don't like calling imaginary numbers imaginary, sure why not,
it IS an ambiguous phrasing, but "determinate" and "indeterminate"
numbers is even worse !

You still haven't explained how you calculate "1".


what if we said the opposite of what the wave equation applies, what if
we said that waves are determinate, and that particles are at least
partially indeterminate

... this is beyond my expertise, but wouldn't it be exactly equivalent,
mathematically speaking ? You're just rotating everything by 90 degrees
or something ?


what happens when you put a distribution of (determinate,indeterminate)
through the wave equation? Maybe this is a case of
(garbage-in),garbage-out)


Why don't you do it ? We have the "wave equation" (is that Schrodinger's
equation ?), we have complex numbers, why don't you feed the latter into
the former and see what comes out ?

I honestly can't tell if it's just that I don't know enough about
quantum physics, or whether you actually aren't making sense. I can
hazard a guess from experience, but I'd prefer it if you could explain
what you are talking about in more mathematical detail.



--
Dale

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: the Many Worlds Interpretation, etc.
    ... if any possibility of the possibility distribution has an outcome, ... If one possibility has a probability of 1, ... this leaves the wave equation as inadequate. ... And imaginations ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: the Many Worlds Interpretation, etc.
    ... if any possibility of the possibility distribution has an outcome, ... If one possibility has a probability of 1, ... this leaves the wave equation as inadequate. ... And imaginations ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: the Many Worlds Interpretation, etc.
    ... possibilities have a probability of 0. ... the wave equation returns a probability distribution that adds up to a 100% probability, but no probability itself is 100%, the highest probability always coincides with the Newtonian laws ... this leaves the wave equation as inadequate. ... And imaginations ...
    (talk.origins)
  • the Many Worlds Interpretation, etc.
    ... if you reverse the wave equation for a probability distribution you don't get one particle nature. ... And imaginations are existential, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: the Many Worlds Interpretation, etc.
    ... if any possibility of the possibility distribution has an outcome, ... If one possibility has a probability of 1, ... this leaves the wave equation as inadequate. ... And imaginations ...
    (talk.origins)