The many-worlds theory, explained + Universe is not purely mathematical in nature

[Secular Sanity]

I still don't understand the question.

I’m asking if your "interpretation of an interpretation" is the common interpretation of the wave collapse being caused from a macroscopic system (detector) disrupting the phase coherence between the distinct components of its quantum state vector, as in quantum decoherence.

Is that what you’re getting at?

A 'detection' (for now) involves a process that isn't reversible. For example If a detector makes a click when a photon is detected you can't make a photon by making a click in the vicinity of the detector. If a photon hits the back of the eye and causes a chemical change the energy of the photon goes into making the chemical change and the photon is destroyed in the process. The chemical change isn't reversible. If a photon bounces off the nice shiny lens at the front of the eye you don't see it and the photon stays in play. 

Dwelling on the standard Double Slit Experiment - the probability of detecting a photon at any of an infinite number of points can be calculated with great precision. What is surprising is that removing the photon from play by an irreversible process means it won't be detected anywhere else - the probability 'field' vanishes (or collapses) instantly. I don't think Einstein was very pleased with photons because 'instantly' and special relativity don't work well together.

[C C]

[...] The 'wave pattern' that is seen in the Double Slit experiment when using single photons (or atoms) is inferred from the distribution of of the photons (or atoms) when they are detected. Most people seem to accept that the outcome is pure chance as though the particle is plucked out of the 'wave' most likely at the peaks and least likely at the troughs. This element of chance is what (I think) lead Einstein to say "God does not play dice."

Sabine Hossenfelder and her physicist/philosopher colleague are hip on superdeterminism, contending that it's misunderstood by the majority. Which in turn perhaps underlines the ambiguity of what each supporter or critic may be implying about it in terms of ontological consequences.

"Superdeterminists do not recognize the existence of genuine chances or possibilities anywhere in the cosmos." --Wikipedia, Superdeterminism

If that's the case (and if it's more an umbrella term than devoted to a single, specific conception of the idea)... Then a situation of superdeterminism would already have set both the (random) individual particle behavior and the general (predictable) behavior throughout the so-called "past, present, future" of the universe.

Although the simple block universe model is often declared [absolutely] deterministic, an _X_ event can still qualify as random or anomalous if there is no principle it is conforming to. IOW, if it is not predictable by the calculations of any template despite co-existing with everything else ahead of the "specious temporal flow" of human or any biological awareness eventually experiencing it (i.e., giving it immediate "realness" in mental representations).

Crudely akin to a very elongated wood carving that has an overall design pattern reliably repeated along its length (its "lawful" or rule-following nature), but at the small details level its characteristics are wandering or varying arbitrarily.

IOW, superdeterminism seems like a covert or roundabout or over-complicated way of asserting that spacetime continuity is more fundamental than the quirky discreteness of the quantum level.

[Secular Sanity]

Sabine Hossenfelder and her physicist/philosopher colleague are hip on superdeterminism, contending that it's misunderstood by the majority. Which in turn perhaps underlines the ambiguity of what each supporter or critic may be implying about it in terms of ontological consequences.

"Superdeterminists do not recognize the existence of genuine chances or possibilities anywhere in the cosmos." --Wikipedia, Superdeterminism

If that's the case (and if it's more an umbrella term than devoted to a single, specific conception of the idea)... Then a situation of superdeterminism would already have set both the (random) individual particle behavior and the general (predictable) behavior throughout the so-called "past, present, future" of the universe.

Although the simple block universe model is often declared [absolutely] deterministic, an _X_ event can still qualify as random or anomalous if there is no principle it is conforming to. IOW, if it is not predictable by the calculations of any template despite co-existing with everything else ahead of the "specious temporal flow" of human or any biological awareness eventually experiencing it (i.e., giving it immediate "realness" in mental representations).

Crudely akin to a very elongated wood carving that has an overall design pattern reliably repeated along its length (its "lawful" or rule-following nature), but at the small details level its characteristics are wandering or varying arbitrarily.

IOW, superdeterminism seems like a covert or roundabout or over-complicated way of asserting that spacetime continuity is more fundamental than the quirky discreteness of the quantum level.

It seems like you’ve posted things written by Sabine Hossenfelder before.

Is this a juxtaposition?

"But we are unlikely to find evidence of Superdeterminism by chance."

[C C]

Sabine Hossenfelder and her physicist/philosopher colleague are hip on superdeterminism, contending that it's misunderstood by the majority. Which in turn perhaps underlines the ambiguity of what each supporter or critic may be implying about it in terms of ontological consequences.

"Superdeterminists do not recognize the existence of genuine chances or possibilities anywhere in the cosmos." --Wikipedia, Superdeterminism

If that's the case (and if it's more an umbrella term than devoted to a single, specific conception of the idea)... Then a situation of superdeterminism would already have set both the (random) individual particle behavior and the general (predictable) behavior throughout the so-called "past, present, future" of the universe.

Although the simple block universe model is often declared [absolutely] deterministic, an _X_ event can still qualify as random or anomalous if there is no principle it is conforming to. IOW, if it is not predictable by the calculations of any template despite co-existing with everything else ahead of the "specious temporal flow" of human or any biological awareness eventually experiencing it (i.e., giving it immediate "realness" in mental representations).

Crudely akin to a very elongated wood carving that has an overall design pattern reliably repeated along its length (its "lawful" or rule-following nature), but at the small details level its characteristics are wandering or varying arbitrarily.

IOW, superdeterminism seems like a covert or roundabout or over-complicated way of asserting that spacetime continuity is more fundamental than the quirky discreteness of the quantum level.

It seems like you’ve posted things written by Sabine Hossenfelder before.

Is this a juxtaposition?

"But we are unlikely to find evidence of Superdeterminism by chance."

She seems to be alluding to no systematic effort taking place to discover such, as well as that perhaps being due to the "idea" not even being rigorously formalized enough in a consensus manner to implement such. Which goes back to my wondering if superdeterminism is an umbrella term subsuming all sorts of different takes on it. Although she does contend it has a supposed nucleus that elaborations about it have to revolve around:

"The core idea of Superdeterminism is that everything in the universe is related to everything else because the laws of nature prohibit certain configurations of particles (or make them so unlikely that for all practical purposes they never occur). If you had an empty universe and placed one particle in it, then you could not place the other ones arbitrarily. They’d have to obey certain relations to the first."

Rings a bit of the background in Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason, where the whole network of explanation has to be internally coherent -- there is total inter-dependency of the contents.

I still feel it is simpler just to point out how scientists in a cinematic movie (block universe) would contend that particle behavior has a random aspect to it (though conforming to predictability as a group), even though all frames of their reality co-exist with each other rather than each being outputted by a process (i.e. merely being short-lived changes). IOW, there are still items classifiable as "chance-like" despite their reality being completely determined from beginning to end. The "randomness" is actually just lack of any principle that could calculate what will happen with certainty (group behavior is statistically amenable to "lawfulness" or pattern, but no strictness for individual subatomic behavior).

[confused2]

Looking at traffic light controllers. Most give a green light when a queue of traffic is detected. An alternative called (from memory) linkless linking is where each set of traffic lights (at different junctions) has a clock and runs a fixed sequence set by the clock. With accurate clocks one junction would send a platoon of traffic to the next junction and the lights would be green when they got there (on a good day). The green light is caused by the program (time!) not the traffic. A motorist arriving at the junction might believe it is their presence that caused the lights to change but in reality there is no causal link.

SS linked to a lecture by Jim Al-Khalili ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ ) where he mentions (at the end) that a working detector at one slit of a double slit experiment will destroy the interference pattern. If the detector is unplugged the interference pattern comes back. Linkless linking - Jim pulls the plug (some distance away) as part of a program and the interference pattern is restored as part of the same (or some other) program. There is no causal link between the two events but the clock and program are jigged so it looks like there is. Without even considering local clocks - let us say the clock started with the Big Bang - to get Jim in the right place to unplug the detector and the Slit Experiment primed to change state at 'the right time' would require a clock of near infinite accuracy - I don't think that is 'physical'.

---

IOW, superdeterminism seems like a covert or roundabout or over-complicated way of asserting that spacetime continuity is more fundamental than the quirky discreteness of the quantum level.

Is it my imagination or is it unusual to see CC moving away from impartial commentary?

---

I’m asking if your "interpretation of an interpretation" is the common interpretation of the wave collapse ..

Not my field so I don't know how common it might (or might not) be. That was my starting point for the purpose of discussion.

[C C]

I still don't understand the question.

I’m asking if your "interpretation of an interpretation" is the common interpretation of the wave collapse being caused from a macroscopic system (detector) disrupting the phase coherence between the distinct components of its quantum state vector, as in quantum decoherence. [...]

I see Wojciech Zurek finally gets mentioned there in the "Measurement" section. His so-called "quantum Darwinism" is what's been gradually building up to a crescendo since the early 2000s. Philip Ball has taken up enthusiastically beating its drum in recent years. However, Zurek himself says it can snuggle up to both the Copenhagen and Many-Worlds interpretations (demoting "collapse" in significance[*] and being agnostic about MW). So unlike what Ball perhaps itches for, it's not really a rat poison for exorcising those interpretations completely from the scene.

Copenhagen vs. Many Worlds: And the Winner Is…: The problem with the Copenhagen Interpretation is that it doesn’t describe how this collapse occurs. It also raises the uncomfortable philosophical question of whether an objective reality exists in the absence of observers.

Then in the 1950s, Hugh Everett III—a student of John Wheeler’s—came up with an even more radical solution that did away with collapse entirely. He suggested that the entire universe is a quantum object, with every possible outcome of a measurement realized—just in different realities. This leads to a mind-boggling scenario, in which every possible quantum state exists in its own world, a scenario of parallel universes rather simplistically called the "many worlds" interpretation.

So which alternative does Zurek back? He favors decoherence theory, which describes how interaction with the environment gradually destroys a quantum state. But Zurek is quick to point out that decoherence is compatible with both interpretations. "Collapse has metaphysical connotations. It begins to touch on whether you think like Bohr or Everett," says Zurek. "What I am trying to do, among other things, is to try and stay away from taking a side."

Quantum Darwinism, an Idea to Explain Objective Reality, Passes First Tests
https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-d...-20190722/

Quantum common sense
https://aeon.co/essays/the-quantum-view-...-after-all

- - - footnote - - -

[*] Tim Jones: Decoherence offers a theoretical framework in which the measurement problem can be swept under the carpet (pushed into a system larger than that which we can observe). The effect is that quantum mechanics can be studied and presented to a student without the need for the ad hoc "wave collapse'' being presented as a primary tool of the theory. One can achieve, in many cases, the same apparent effect of a wave collapse without recourse to von Neumann's mysterious first intervention.

Thus we clarify that decoherence is not a new theory unto itself, but is instead an efficient and fruitful repackaging of theory. It does not solve the measurement problem, and most certainly wouldn't have satisfied the reservations of Einstein in his later years. Nevertheless, given its elegance in providing an apparent transition from the quantum realm to the classical realm, and its experimental success, we believe the time has come that decoherence be incorporated into graduate level quantum mechanics courses. This report is designed to be a self-contained introduction to the topic appropriate for a graduate student. --What is Decoherence?

[C C]

IOW, superdeterminism seems like a covert or roundabout or over-complicated way of asserting that spacetime continuity is more fundamental than the quirky discreteness of the quantum level.

Is it my imagination or is it unusual to see CC moving away from impartial commentary?

Meh. Hubby and I started binge watching{*} the first three seasons of the Killing Eve series that Wegs was talking about back in February.

IOW, like the principle character in iZombie who temporarily inherits personality traits from dead people's brains, I probably picked up some kind of bug from this show.

Regardless of the cited Idoia López Riaño and Angela Simpson prototypes, I'm pretty sure the TV version of hit-woman Villanelle is at least partly inspired by crazed Alice Morgan of Luther fame. Who in turn was inspired across the Atlantic by "Dexter" (even share the same last name). So, you get the idea of what kind of personality meme infection I'm talking about in terms of being exposed to themes and roles of this nature...

- - - footnote - - -

{*} Our idea of binge watching is one episode a day. So far it does seem like the fluffy style stuff that Yazata opined, but haven't even got beyond the middle of the first season yet. In the end, though, what is any "spy thriller" other than style, much less a tongue-in-cheek one?

[confused2]

These guys are using light from a distant star to "confirm quantum mechanics" - I can't work out how/why - any ideas?
https://news.mit.edu/2018/light-ancient-...ement-0820

[C C]

These guys are using light from a distant star to "confirm quantum mechanics" - I can't work out how/why - any ideas?
https://news.mit.edu/2018/light-ancient-...ement-0820

I'm notoriously content with the general or outlined comprehensions that these articles provide (i.e., why spend hours on the intricate details of an _X_ that I would forget a few days later, anyhooo?). So I wouldn't seek and draw out a diagram of all the countless relationships involved here to try to understand it accurately at the level of specifics.

These researchers are purely ruling out the "freedom of choice loophole", the latter involving a possible hidden variable explanation (working classically at less than the speed of light) which might be determining the correlation of entangled particles.

It sounds like they used the light from extremely distant quasars to select the angle of the polarizers in the light detectors measuring the pairs of entangled photons. Since the effects from the quasars would originate billions of years into the past, the results made it highly unlikely that a conspiracy of classical interactions gradually working over that great spatial and temporal distance could be restricting the choices that the experimenters make in the future (now) concerning their setup.

Not sure such tests can really rule out hidden variable explanations of the retrocausal vein, though. The transactional interpretation (TIQM), for instance, has at least one foot in those. The coherence of the universe (including these experiments) is made possible by the "time travel" of these "wave-like" information vehicles coordinating everything throughout spacetime (including the QM experiments).

"The transactional interpretation, initially developed by John Cramer, also incorporates elements of both collapse and hidden variable approaches. It starts from the observation that some versions of the dynamical equation of quantum mechanics admit wave-like solutions traveling backward in time as well as forward in time. Typically the former solutions are ignored, but the transactional interpretation retains them. Just as in retrocausal hidden variable theories, the backward-travelling waves can transmit information about the measurements to be performed on a system, and hence allow the transactional interpretation to evade the conclusion of Bell’s theorem." https://www.iep.utm.edu/int-qm/#H6

Depending on how well my memory is today, "way out there" Fred Alan Wolf of Fundamental Fysiks Group fame once proposed that it was the interference pattern created by the advanced and retarded waves traveling in their opposite directions of time that created the structure of the spacetime continuum (including the appearance of discrete particles arising via the crests and troughs variously cancelling each other out and augmenting each other in the meticulous mayhem of the interference pattern).

[Secular Sanity]

Is it my imagination or is it unusual to see CC moving away from impartial commentary?

Not to detract from CC’s newly, acquired, desirable traits but I’ve often found that if you don’t talk at her, or about her, but to her, she responds quite nicely. Funny how that works.

I realize that I almost succumbed to wearing a pink polka dot dress but now I’m picturing CC in a pink tulle dress. 

I quite like the idea of superdeterminism when it comes to solving the measurement problem but when it comes to me, I don’t think there’s anything super about superdeterminism. Although, Amor Fati has somewhat of a romantic ring to it, in order to maintain my name structure (as Syne would say), I’d have to acquire a few new traits myself. Preferably, some of The Lady’s. I mean otherwise, I’d just be a soulless zombie. Speaking of which, I sure hope that my colorful rival isn’t referring to me with his latest hit. I’ll tell you about it over coffee.

Not my field so I don't know how common it might (or might not) be. That was my starting point for the purpose of discussion.

It’s not my field of expertise either. Come to think of it, I don’t even have a field of expertise. 

Here’s the paper showing the setup, C2.

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10...118.060401