“quantity that determines which direction heat will flow between two systems,”
Yeah, that’s a better definition :)
I actually have trouble defending “probability is in the mind” in some physics contexts without invoking many-worlds.
Feel free to elaborate. I’d think that probability is either in the map or in the territory, regardless of the context or your QM ontology, not sometimes here and sometimes there. And if it is in the territory, then so is entropy and temperature, right?
Say we have some electron in equal superposition of spin up and down, and we measure it.
In Copenhagen, the universe decides that it’s up or down right then and there, with 50% probability. This isn’t in the mind, since it’s not a product of our ignorance. It can’t be, because of Bell stuff.
In many-worlds, the universe does a deterministic thing and one branch measures spin up, one measures spin down. The probability is in my mind, because it’s a product of my ignorance—I don’t know what branch I’m in.
Hmm, so, assuming there is no experimental distinction between the two interpretations, there is no way to tell the difference between map and territory, not even in principle? That’s disconcerting. I guess I see what you mean by ” trouble defending “probability is in the mind”″.
If we inject some air into a box then close our eyes for a few seconds and shove in a partition, there is a finite chance of finding the nitrogen on one side and the oxygen on the other. Entropy can decrease, and that’s allowed by the laws of physics. The internal energy had better not change, though. That’s disallowed.
If energy changes, our underlying physical laws need to be reexamined. In the official dogma, these are firmly in the territory. If entropy goes down, our map was likely wrong.
I’d think that probability is either in the map or in the territory
Even if Copenhagen is right, I as a rational agent should still ought to use mind-probabilities. It may be the case that the quantum world is truly probabilistic-in-the-territory, but that doesn’t affect the fact that I don’t know the state of any physical system precisely.
Yeah, that’s a better definition :)
Feel free to elaborate. I’d think that probability is either in the map or in the territory, regardless of the context or your QM ontology, not sometimes here and sometimes there. And if it is in the territory, then so is entropy and temperature, right?
Say we have some electron in equal superposition of spin up and down, and we measure it.
In Copenhagen, the universe decides that it’s up or down right then and there, with 50% probability. This isn’t in the mind, since it’s not a product of our ignorance. It can’t be, because of Bell stuff.
In many-worlds, the universe does a deterministic thing and one branch measures spin up, one measures spin down. The probability is in my mind, because it’s a product of my ignorance—I don’t know what branch I’m in.
Hmm, so, assuming there is no experimental distinction between the two interpretations, there is no way to tell the difference between map and territory, not even in principle? That’s disconcerting. I guess I see what you mean by ” trouble defending “probability is in the mind”″.
If we inject some air into a box then close our eyes for a few seconds and shove in a partition, there is a finite chance of finding the nitrogen on one side and the oxygen on the other. Entropy can decrease, and that’s allowed by the laws of physics. The internal energy had better not change, though. That’s disallowed.
If energy changes, our underlying physical laws need to be reexamined. In the official dogma, these are firmly in the territory. If entropy goes down, our map was likely wrong.
That doesn’t follow.
Even if Copenhagen is right, I as a rational agent should still ought to use mind-probabilities. It may be the case that the quantum world is truly probabilistic-in-the-territory, but that doesn’t affect the fact that I don’t know the state of any physical system precisely.
Can’t there be forms of probability in the territoryand the map?