Rochelle

when people go to the gym they shouldn't use weights and machines. They should practice lifting real-world objects that they might need to lift or carry in the future

This is a stronger argument than I had thought.

yeah :)

never happened to me befoe tbh

its so cool to be enthused about one's work

i just invented the word "coprolalia" for 'talking shit'

I especially love how it makes all the higher homotopies abelian

i might be basic for this but i love Eckman-Hilton.

what is 'can'?

well, i didn't truly want to deny it. just to do something with the fact that, with certainty, there are people out there (futures of me, even) who seemingly falsify QM's predictions, even given its truth.

but yes.... it does seem the gleason theorem is very constraining...

Storm on Saturn

Saturn-W00066629-Feb-25-RAW - From Ian Regan - https://flic.kr/p/9qzyuV

If we just supposed all observation sequences were realized, this could accommodate our experiences, but I would regard it as inadequate. Not necessary due to a belief that, on the theory, my own experiences were less likely than some other. Rather because there is no specificity.

Corn Rule aside, I am not necessarily trying to invent an alternate valuation that makes not-Born more likely than Born.

I think its fine if its an emergent sort of inexact thing. I just want to know why I should follow it over the Corn Rule. (I think part of your argument is that I will be unable to formulate such a Corn Rule?)

Curiously, Corn-most of my future selves see results consistent with the Corn rule.

In the dutch book argument I am *certain* to lose money if I don't conform. If I understand certainty, I'll understand chance.

Here, nothing is certain. I might falsify Born. In fact, I am Corn-guaranteed to do so!

ok, suppose I agree that I live in a MWI universe. You are trying to convince me to use the Born rule. You say "Look, Rochelle, most* of your future selves will see results consistent with the Born rule!!"

Here, 'most' has to be understood as Born-most, i.e. most according to the Born rule.

I'm here to shut up and calculate. And I'm all out of calculate. 😎

No, I wasn't. I'm not familiar at all.

Sure, its unlikely we are wrong about the Born rule---according to the Born rule.

I think the loophole in Gleason that I was grasping for earlier is that I have to agree to the basic furniture of quantum theory: a lattice of projection operators on a hilbert space. The suckers in the tails might have made up all the wrong math.

But that could be us!

I still don't know what you do with the poor saps living in the tails who invented the wrong theory. If Born rule is 'true' then those suckers' experiments from here on are most likely to adhere to Born, i.e. falsify their poor theory.

But this could be us!

This isn't necessarily the case. GRW is a collapse theory in which, essentially, collapse could happen to anything at any time but the likelihood scales with size. 'Measurement' is then not a primitive, but anything you'd call a messurement quickly collapses due to your own size.

Although I can see how this in particular might get old.

I don't know about anyone else but I think there's nothing better than having drinks and debating something that doesn't impact my life in any way. (I just wish we could all get together to do it over drinks.)

i wonder if the anti-abortion protestors on campus are put up to it by panda express because when i see their imagery i get hungry for sweet and sour pork

Those of the marble are the Elect; those others are destined for utter destruction. (All to the glory of god, ofc.)

Those of the marble are the Elect; those others are destined for utter destruction. (All to the glory of god, ofc.)

I am not allowed to reply until I finish this draft of my thesis

With enough control you could recohere them, but in classical physics with enough control you can reverse someone's memories as well.

I think the many-worlder would bite this bullet. That, if you truly remain somehow unentangled with the state of your friend, then you in short order have many many friends. You will reason that each one of them has experienced a definite measurement outcome.