I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption which explains how we come to measure discrete values.
On 31 March 2014 16:27, <ghib...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote: >>> >>> The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? >>> >>> I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly >>> apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the fact >>> other interpretations had similar flaws; as if the fact someone else is ill >>> would make you less ill yourself. I think in the world of QM >>> interpretations, with bugger all evidence to decide between them, the game >>> is to even out the playing field in terms of flaws and then chase >>> parsimony. Ofcourse, whether an infinite set of worlds is more or less >>> parsimonious than just one + a few hidden variables, or one + a spooky >>> wave function collapse, depends very much on what definition of >>> parsimonious you find most fitting. >>> >> >> MWI is refuted by the massive totally unexamined - some unrealized to >> this day - assumptions built in at the start. >> >> >> ? >> >> >> MWI seems to me to be the literal understanding of QM (without collapse). >> It is also a simple consequence of computationalism, except we get a >> multi-dreams and the question remains open if this defines a universe, a >> multiverse, or a multi-multiverses, etc. (results points toward a >> multiverse though). >> > > How can 'without collapse' in any sense be literal? Collapse is > an empirically observed fact. OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould > the empirically observed fact actually not be. > > But would even that alone have been remotely near the ballpark of things > taken seriously, had there not been extreme quantum strangeness > irreconcilable at that time, with the most core, most > fundamental accomplishments of science to date? > > MWI is an extreme explanation that makes the universe infinity more > complex and undiscoverable than it was before. An intolerably > extreme theory unprecedented in all science, to be taken seriously, > requires an even more intolerable crisis. And it just so happens at that > very same point, such an extremity confronted science...quantum > strangeness. > > But hold on a mo...I said MWI blasted complexity to the infinite limit. > But that isn't true is it? MWI is Occam consistent, so the complexity > malarkey is refuted good and proper. I will gladly stand corrected on that > then. But you would agree, wouldn't you, that were it not for that Occam > argument MWI would be placed in an untenlaable position? > > Glad you can agree about that. You should all really be able to agree > about the hard-linking of MWI and quantumht strangeness. There's no reason > why believing MW should obscure this fact. > > And.....that Occam argument. What is that based on again, without which > it wouldn't be viable. Yes that's right, it's quantum strangeness. None of > the other stuff factors in much at all. > - > Hundreds....possibly uncountably so...of largely unrealized, unexamined, > assumptions are fundamental in MWI construction from Q > > I have pointed this out in the past. People typically try to rebut this > basically the same way you try here, involving denying MWI is intrinsically > linked to quantum strangeness in multiple, massive ways. I've listed some > above. Each one of the examples above, demonstrate a way MWI would never > have happened, or would be rendered untenable, where it not for some > defence founded exclusively on quantum strangeness. > > At ther times I've shown how it is impossible to render MWI without > implicitly making several assumptions about local realism, as to its > objective truth AS WE PERCEIVE IT, it's priority in relation to other > conceptions on scales of what is fundamental, and so on. > > It's just shocking - it used to be disturbing also - how none of you > are willing to acknowledge the defining linkage of MWI and quantum > strangeness. Despite massive evidence through multi[le dimensions from me. > Despite obviousness. Despite complete failure to date of any one of you to > refute any one of the of the hard linkages (I.e. MWI would not exist or > would be thrown out without that link) that I've given. > > Despite the fact nothing new is ever said...the same arguments just get > repeated. Despite all of them, I think, totally demolished and refuated by > a quantum strangeness dependency. > > Like Bruno's repeat below of this argument QM is a direct consequence of > these things and nothing else. > > > >> Local realism is not part of QM assumption. It is a direct consequence of >> the linearity of the Schroedinger Equation, and the linearity of the tensor >> products. >> > h > Yeah? So you think that because some equations have a linearity character > - which may be important, may be puzzling. But because of this, you say, > thiis feature alone is enough to deny the reality of what is consistently > the empirically observed collapse of the wave function. To such an extreme > priority this denial of objective fact be true, science would be willing to > construct an infinite multiverse around the denial ofje empirically > observed obective reality, just so as to make it work? > > You honestly believe that? Is there precedence for something like this? > No. It'blacks Bruno. There's nothing about those equations that > categorically rules out collapse events. Ciolapse eents are not even shown > lower in priority. The equations in that model recur. So what > l > You have no case for MWle the result of these sequences as you claim. You > have no realistic, plausible case. > > Yet you keep repeating it. And it's pretty clear why..what is in your > head. What is true, is that MWI conceivably does follow to some high level > extHoent from these equations and a range of assumptions then made. > > But that's neither here nnor there Bruno. Evolution can be derived in all > sorts of ways. New ways of deriving things parre always emerging. But that > is not the difficult part of this. Would that derivation alone have been > sufficient for the extremes of MWI to become a serious contender? > > Science is littered with equations that imply or fail to imply science. > Newton's a magical action at a distance. Newton knew it was a problem, but > it was a profound far reaching of hundreds of solutions. For one new > problem. A good deal. Science was willing to leave that problem right at > the core of his theory for more than 300 years. > > How much do you want to bet I can't come up with a multiverse explanation > that clears up Newtons non-local problem? > ca > You ha ve not made your case. You have not seen the problem with how you > try to make a case. You keep repeating this refuted, frankly daft argument. > Yes...you can envisage MWI from an issue with thosoe equations. Big deal. > Show that thei lineaity of those equations alone is enough, to drop > empirical observation and invent a multiverse just to make the denial stand > up. Show it. Show a precedent. Make an explicit argument thaet > acknowledgess the challenge and its importance > e d > > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
