Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 1hi pace around my apartment most days gripping my skull and cursing my stupidity 110
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 1hUnfortunately I don't expect to understand this sort of thing in my lifetime 😮💨 110
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 1hLinearity will preserve their separateness just fine. Effective non-linearity comes from outside, this just needs to not happen, and besides it could ruin an orthogonal or a non-orthogonal decomposition alike. 110
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 1hHonestly I'm not even sure why its needs orthogonality at all... it just needs that the inference observables between the summands will never be measured... right? 110
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 1hCan you say more about that? I guess my simplified mental model for this scenario was that we repeatedly declare the components (in some orthogonal decomposition) to be "branches", evolve, do it again, etc. 100
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 2hI can compute the probability that any given event-sequence takes place, but the rule that "if a property manifested, the quantum state is a relevant eigenstate" doesn't work or apply when the property refers to multiple times. 100
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 2hI'd like to be better able to say how there can exist diachronic properties!! What's going on? 100
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 2hWe don't just use one quantum state; we use many, discontinuously. I suppose all this says is that the object system state doesn't contain record of its past; those are elsewhere(?) As well, collapse doesn't really work in Heisenberg picture. Q -> PQP doesn't preserve the projection lattice. 110
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 2hSo... what Heisenberg-picture quantum state is a particle in when it was here now, and there then? 110
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 2hKind of off-topic but this reminds of something that confusing me recently: diachronic quantum properties. It seems like "here now; there at t" should be a perfectly good property. But the Heisenberg-picture operators X(0), X(t) do not commute, and no quantum state gives them both definite values. 130
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 2hI think the responses will broadly fall along whether - Frequentism works _at all_ - The Everettian can justify convergence in Hilbert norm as salient 000
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 2hSimon Saunders has recently been developing a frequentist approach to Everettian probability, but afaict it isn't very similar at all to what you're saying here. Its very much kinematical, and doesn't really on the dynamics actually producing branches. I can't really get my head around it. 200
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 2hAs to (a), it is a very broadly endorsed principle that Amplitude 1 is sufficient for the property to be instantiated. (The Eigenvector-Eigenvalue Link.) Insofar as there's controversy, its whether Amplitude 1 should be necessary. (I think definitely not; but this makes your case better.) 100
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 2hI'm not familiar with this line of argument appearing before, but I wouldn't necessarily know. It's certainly interesting! As Gregor mentioned there may be issues in infinite dimensions, but I feel you could sidestep that case. 210
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 3hThe sequences with roughly equal heads and tails dominate by the counting measure; but not every event is 50/50 000
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 3hAfter the many trials, MWI tells us the wavefunction is populated by all sorts of observers: Born-adhering and Born-defying alike. What do we make of this? The Born-defiers share of the amplitude decreases as things go along. What do we make of this? 010
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 4hright; the born-adhering measurement sequences absolutely do occupy the majority of the born probability measure. In the limit, they occupy born-measure 1. 010
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 5hprobably we do, with convergence in the sense of Hilbert space norm. This hopefully explains why I push back a bit on being aatisfidd with norm closenessblog.jessriedel.comHow to think about Quantum Mechanics—Part 7: Quantum chaos and linear evolution[Other parts in this series: .] You're taking a vacation to Granada to enjoy a Spanish ski resort in the Sierra Nevada mountains. But as your plane is coming in for a landing, you look out the window... 110
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 5hSo you're going from "amplitude ~ 1" to "near certainty that this will be my experience." I guess if you're argument works you are reducing the problem of interpreting amplitudes in general to the problem of interpreting amplitudes near zero and near one? 110
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 5hThe full quantum is close to the one you mentioned; that is, close in norm. This is because all the other branches have near zero amplitude. But, supposedly, they are inhabited. You expect that you will not likely inhabit one of them. 110
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 5hwhy identify amplitudes with expectations in the first place? 120
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 07/10/2026It gives me an appreciation for the non-rigorous approach 010
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 07/10/2026I always have a copy of Haag out from the library and sometimes I put it atop my head so that the ideas drain out into me. Reading it directly is a bit too hard. 120
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 07/10/2026how tf do they expect they're able to fix any issues 110
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 07/10/2026Can you imagine if rigorous, non-perturbative, gapless QFT with d>3 occurs in our lifetime 162
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 07/10/2026I don't really understand how this was achieved. Did the model do all the work itself, under no supervision, including the proper formatting of its own proof for Lean verification? I still kinda thought that they needed expert nudging, but I can't imagine OpenAI has experts in all these subjects. 240
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 07/10/2026okay so I have learned there is a mathematical physics section which includes such wonders as cosmic censorship. I guess Hilbert's sixth is going to be resolved. 130
Reposted by Rochellenoam @noamchompers.bsky.social · 07/10/2026I only intermittently follow this advice, or, to put it another way: this advice has been validated by A-B testing 091
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 07/10/2026what is an example of a deliverable task that figures into a philosopher's research 110
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 06/10/2026Isn't this the same thing as an IR cut-off? What's the story about why its there? 110
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 06/10/2026I think it has to do with the fact that you cannot use the particle vocabular of a free theory to discuss and interacting one. So "an electron travels with a cloud of soft photons" is, strictly speaking, nonsense. 020
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 06/10/2026The IR regulator is often taken as far more innocuous than the UV one, but frankly I don't understand it either. I know the story about detector resolutions. But I wonder if there is a more realist story available. 220
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 06/10/2026You know I'd think its a boon that I'm extremely good at lying, but for that example and some of yours I don't honestly have any clue which answer is 'correct' or what it is supposed to indicate about me 230
Rochelle @uberwensch.bsky.social · 06/10/2026@detect.northsky.social's partner needed to answer for Loblaw's the question "Are you someone that things happen to?" 221
