- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: scerir <scerir.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 09:54:26 +0100

Federico:

*> The paradox consists of the fact that the theory of multiverses tells us
*

*> that there must be infinite observers who experiment other physical laws.
*

*> There is not only the possibility of being wrong, it is the model itself
*

*> which proves to be wrong. In fact it tells us that there are infinite
*

*> places and times in this multiverse where, if any people observe the world
*

*> around them in the same way we are doing hic et nunc, they necessarly find
*

*> another model to describe the universe. So the outcome of the model is
*

*> that it must be wrong in infinite places and times, and the paradox is
*

*> that we have proved that it is wrong, but we have been able to draw this
*

*> conclusion because we have considered the hypothesis of applying the
*

*> physical system itself. But if it was wrong, the conclusions would be
*

*> wrong, too.
*

Ciao Federico,

There is a debate about the consistency conditions that must

be satisfied by (density matrices which represent) the knowledge

that different people have about the ***same*** physical system.

These knowledges (and density matrices) are, in general,

different.

So we must always ask (with John Bell) "whose knowledge?". And then

we must impose (Rudolf Peirls) the condition that density matrices

must have a non-zero product (they must have at least one state in

common).

And that was the first level. Or, if you prefer, the first-order

paradox.

Now the question seems (to me) to be this one. What about the density

matrix of the people A in the ***world*** A, representing some knowledge

about the ***world*** B? What about the density matrix of the people B in

the ***world*** B, representing some knowledge about the ***world*** A?

The answer seems to be: more questions. Do these density matrices

commute? I suppose: no. Do these density matrices share at least

one state? I think the answer is, in general: no.

And that was the second-order paradox.

But the above was the case of people living in different ***worlds***

***but*** believing in the same QM.

Now you can imagine what is the problem when they do not even

believe in the same QM (or QM interpretation!).

And that, perhaps, is the third-order paradox.

But maybe thay are not paradoxes. Informations are always

subjective, more or less.

Received on Thu Oct 30 2003 - 03:48:02 PST

Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 09:54:26 +0100

Federico:

Ciao Federico,

There is a debate about the consistency conditions that must

be satisfied by (density matrices which represent) the knowledge

that different people have about the ***same*** physical system.

These knowledges (and density matrices) are, in general,

different.

So we must always ask (with John Bell) "whose knowledge?". And then

we must impose (Rudolf Peirls) the condition that density matrices

must have a non-zero product (they must have at least one state in

common).

And that was the first level. Or, if you prefer, the first-order

paradox.

Now the question seems (to me) to be this one. What about the density

matrix of the people A in the ***world*** A, representing some knowledge

about the ***world*** B? What about the density matrix of the people B in

the ***world*** B, representing some knowledge about the ***world*** A?

The answer seems to be: more questions. Do these density matrices

commute? I suppose: no. Do these density matrices share at least

one state? I think the answer is, in general: no.

And that was the second-order paradox.

But the above was the case of people living in different ***worlds***

***but*** believing in the same QM.

Now you can imagine what is the problem when they do not even

believe in the same QM (or QM interpretation!).

And that, perhaps, is the third-order paradox.

But maybe thay are not paradoxes. Informations are always

subjective, more or less.

Received on Thu Oct 30 2003 - 03:48:02 PST

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:08 PST
*