Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Brent Meeker]

On 11/21/2023 7:43 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Mon, Nov 20, 2023, 3:32 PM John Clark  wrote:

On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 1:22 PM Jesse Mazer 
wrote:

/> Depends what you mean by "couldn't be true"--my
understanding is that Einstein's EPR paper was just asserting
that there must be additional elements of reality beyond the
quantum description/


Yes, Einstein thought he had proven that quantum mechanics*must
*be incomplete because nature just couldn't be that ridiculous.
But it turned out nature *could* be that ridiculous. The moral of
the story is that being ridiculous is not necessarily the same
thing as being wrong.


EPR was ultimately right. QM, as the understood was incomplete, for it 
wasn't acknowledged that there as an infinity of simultaneously 
existing states all of which persisted after measurement. It was 
assuming that measurement somehow changed things and made states 
disappear and do so faster than light which EPR authors couldn't 
swallow. Their intuition proved correct, there are no FTL influences.
That's like saying because the probability Buffon's needle crosses a 
boundary is 2*l/pi*t there must exist infinitely many Buffon's and 
needles and stripes since pi is a transcendental number.  When 
mathematics implies infinities, it's more likely that the mathematics is 
merely an approximation than that it calls into being infinitely many 
things.


Brent


Jason



John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis

brw




-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3bTNE_YRgRpnmVh8rxKT01A4xtDvEPr%2BRrgE6jLmoanw%40mail.gmail.com

.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiGBGzi2XwOfdv0OW0SM-0TUOBtPyhiZSYXfAgm9QQKrg%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/88cb6858-e734-48e9-8a7c-b0b6e64bd9b7%40gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Brent Meeker]

On 11/21/2023 4:11 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 5:32 PM Bruce Kellett  
wrote:


>> Einstein thought he had proven that quantum mechanics*must *be
incomplete because nature just couldn't be that ridiculous.
But it turned out nature *could* be that ridiculous. The moral
of the story is that being ridiculous is not necessarily the
same thing as being wrong.


/> Nevertheless, being ridiculous is no indication that an idea is
correct. Evidence matters, and there is no evidence that the
multiverse of Everett has anything to do with cosmology. In fact,
there is no direct evidence that the quantum multiverse even exists./


There is plenty of direct evidence that quantum weirdness exists, even 
the father of the Copenhagen Interpretation Niels Bohr admitted that 
"/*Anyone who is not shocked by Quantum theory does not understand 
it*/". Something must be behind all that strangeness and whatever it 
is it must be odd, very very odd. Yes, many world's idea is 
ridiculous, but is it ridiculous enough to be true? If it's not then 
something even more ridiculous is. As for the Copenhagen 
interpretation, I don't think it's ridiculous, I think it's 
incoherent, and if you ask 10 adherents what it's saying you'll get 12 
completely different answers, but they all boil down to "/just give 
up, don't even try to figure out what's going on/". But I think one 
must try.


I think that's very unfair to Bohr.  His basic observation was that we 
do science in a classical world */of necessity/*. Only in a classical 
world can we make measurements and keep records that we can agree on.  
So when we study the microscopic world we must use quantum mechanics, 
but our instruments must be classical. The boundary can be anywhere, but 
our science must be on the macroscopic side (this is unlike Heisenberg 
who thought that a definite boundary could be defined in terms of h).  
You can treat a baseball as a quantum system composed of elementary 
particles; but your measurements on it must still give classical 
values.  Since the development of decoherence theory this boundary can 
be quantified in terms vanishing of cross-terms in a reduced density 
matrix.  What is left unexplained,*/in MWI/* as well as Copenhagen, is 
the instantiation of a random result with probability proportional to 
the diagonal elements of the reduced density matrix.


It's no good saying some theory is incoherent unless you consider the 
best possible version of the theory.  Sure a lot of incoherent things 
have been said about the interpretation of QM and attributed to Bohr, 
who was always circuitous and indirect in his talks and later tried to 
make a whole philosophy based on complementarity. But we've made some 
progress since Bohr.


Brent

Brent




John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis 


7c2



--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv23%2BDuEDnedh_dk40W-wq7KcDM%3DtEdj58ZwSDE9jB5YnA%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5095c452-1862-4ec1-b310-99b0730015d9%40gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

['scerir' via Everything List]

According to Schroedinger (1935) the psi-function is a catalogue of 
expectations.

Continuing with the exposition of the official teaching, let us turn to the 
psi-function
mentioned above (§ 5). It is now the instrument for predicting the probability 
of
measurement outcomes. It embodies the totality of theoretical future 
expectations, as laid down in a catalogue. It is, at any moment in time, the 
bridge of relations and restrictions between different measurements, as were in 
the classical theory the model and its state at any given time. The 
psi-function has also otherwise much in common with this classical state. In 
principle, it is also uniquely determined by a finite number of suitably chosen 
measurements on the object, though half as many as in the classical theory. 
Thus is the catalogue of expectations laid down initially. From then on, it 
changes with time, as in the classical theory, in a well-defined and 
deterministic ("causal") way - the development of the psi-function is governed 
by a partial differential equation (of first order in the time variable, and 
resolved for dy/dt). This corresponds to the undisturbed motion of the model in 
the classical theory. But that lasts only so long until another measurement is 
undertaken. After every measurement, one has to attribute to the psi-function a 
curious, somewhat sudden adaptation, which depends on the measurement result 
and is therefore unpredictable. This alone already shows that this second type 
of change of the psi-function has nothing to do with the regular development 
between two measurements. The sudden
change due to measurement is closely connected with the discussion in § 5, and 
we will
consider it in depth in the following. It is the most interesting aspect of the 
whole theory,
and it is precisely this aspect that requires a breach with naive realism. For 
this reason,
the y-function cannot immediately replace the model or the real thing. And this 
is not
because a real thing or a model could not in principle undergo sudden 
unpredictable
changes, but because from a realistic point of view, measurements are natural 
phenomena like any other, and should not by themselves cause a sudden 
interruption of the regular evolution in Nature.
 

> Il 21/11/2023 18:12 +01 Jason Resch  ha scritto:
>  
>  
> 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2023, 11:17 AM 'scerir' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Just an interesting quote.
> > 
> > “The idea that they [measurement outcomes] be not alternatives but *all* 
> > really happen simultaneously seems lunatic to him [the quantum theorist], 
> > just *impossible*. He thinks that if the laws of nature took *this* form 
> > for, let me say, a quarter of an hour, we should find our surroundings 
> > rapidly turning into a quagmire, or sort of a featureless jelly or plasma, 
> > all contours becoming blurred, we ourselves probably becoming jelly fish. 
> > It is strange that he should believe this. For I understand he grants that 
> > unobserved nature does behave this way – namely according to the wave 
> > equation. The aforesaid *alternatives* come into play only when we make an 
> > observation - which need, of course, not be a scientific observation. Still 
> > it would seem that, according to the quantum theorist, nature is prevented 
> > from rapid jellification only by our perceiving or observing it. [] 
> > The compulsion to replace the "simultaneous* happenings, as indicated 
> > directly by the theory, by *alternatives*, of which the theory is supposed 
> > to indicate the respective *probabilities*, arises from the conviction that 
> > what we really observe are particles - that actual events always concern 
> > particles, not waves."
> >  
> > -Erwin Schroedinger, The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Dublin 
> > Seminars (1949-1955) and Other Unpublished Essays (Ox Bow Press, 
> > Woodbridge, Connecticut, 1995), pages 19-20.
> > 
>  
> This is how David Deutsch interpreted these lectures:
>  
> "Schrödinger also had the basic idea of parallel universes shortly before 
> Everett, but he didn't publish it. He mentioned it in a lecture in Dublin, in 
> which he predicted that the audience would think he was crazy. Isn't that a 
> strange assertion coming from a Nobel Prize winner—that he feared being 
> considered crazy for claiming that his equation, the one that he won the 
> Nobel Prize for, might be true." -- David Deutsch
>  
>  
> Jason 
>  
> 
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > 
> > > Il 21/11/2023 16:43 +01 Jason Resch  > > mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> > >  
> > >  
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023, 3:32 PM John Clark  > > mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 1:22 PM Jesse Mazer  > > > mailto:laserma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > > > Depends what you mean by "couldn't be true"--my understanding is 
> > > > > > that Einstein's EPR paper was just asserting 

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Nov 21, 2023, 11:17 AM 'scerir' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Just an interesting quote.
> “The idea that they [measurement outcomes] be not alternatives but *all*
> really happen simultaneously seems lunatic to him [the quantum theorist],
> just *impossible*. He thinks that if the laws of nature took *this* form
> for, let me say, a quarter of an hour, we should find our surroundings
> rapidly turning into a quagmire, or sort of a featureless jelly or plasma,
> all contours becoming blurred, we ourselves probably becoming jelly fish.
> It is strange that he should believe this. For I understand he grants that
> unobserved nature does behave this way – namely according to the wave
> equation. The aforesaid *alternatives* come into play only when we make an
> observation - which need, of course, not be a scientific observation. Still
> it would seem that, according to the quantum theorist, nature is prevented
> from rapid jellification only by our perceiving or observing it. []
> The compulsion to replace the "simultaneous* happenings, as indicated
> directly by the theory, by *alternatives*, of which the theory is supposed
> to indicate the respective *probabilities*, arises from the conviction that
> what we really observe are particles - that actual events always concern
> particles, not waves."
>
> -Erwin Schroedinger, The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Dublin
> Seminars (1949-1955) and Other Unpublished Essays (Ox Bow Press,
> Woodbridge, Connecticut, 1995), pages 19-20.
>

This is how David Deutsch interpreted these lectures:

"Schrödinger also had the basic idea of parallel universes shortly before
Everett, but he didn't publish it. He mentioned it in a lecture in Dublin,
in which he predicted that the audience would think he was crazy. Isn't
that a strange assertion coming from a Nobel Prize winner—that he feared
being considered crazy for claiming that his equation, the one that he won
the Nobel Prize for, might be true." -- David Deutsch


Jason


>
>
>
> Il 21/11/2023 16:43 +01 Jason Resch  ha scritto:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023, 3:32 PM John Clark  wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 1:22 PM Jesse Mazer  wrote:
>
>
> *> Depends what you mean by "couldn't be true"--my understanding is that
> Einstein's EPR paper was just asserting that there must be additional
> elements of reality beyond the quantum description*
>
>
> Yes, Einstein thought he had proven that quantum mechanics* must *be
> incomplete because nature just couldn't be that ridiculous. But it turned
> out nature *could* be that ridiculous. The moral of the story is that
> being ridiculous is not necessarily the same thing as being wrong.
>
>
> EPR was ultimately right. QM, as the understood was incomplete, for it
> wasn't acknowledged that there as an infinity of simultaneously existing
> states all of which persisted after measurement. It was assuming that
> measurement somehow changed things and made states disappear and do so
> faster than light which EPR authors couldn't swallow. Their intuition
> proved correct, there are no FTL influences.
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>
>  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
> 
> brw
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3bTNE_YRgRpnmVh8rxKT01A4xtDvEPr%2BRrgE6jLmoanw%40mail.gmail.com
> .
>
>
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiGBGzi2XwOfdv0OW0SM-0TUOBtPyhiZSYXfAgm9QQKrg%40mail.gmail.com
> .
>
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1533872897.23972.1700583456959%40mail1.libero.it
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to 

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 11:17 AM 'scerir' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> > Just an interesting quote.
> “*The idea that they [measurement outcomes] be not alternatives but *all*
> really happen simultaneously seems lunatic to him [the quantum theorist],
> just *impossible*. He thinks that if the laws of nature took *this* form
> for, let me say, a quarter of an hour, we should find our surroundings
> rapidly turning into a quagmire, or sort of a featureless jelly or plasma,
> all contours becoming blurred, we ourselves probably becoming jelly fish.
> It is strange that he should believe this. For I understand he grants that
> unobserved nature does behave this way – namely according to the wave
> equation. The aforesaid *alternatives* come into play only when we make an
> observation - which need, of course, not be a scientific observation. Still
> It would seem that, according to the quantum theorist, nature is prevented
> from rapid jellification only by our perceiving or observing it. []
> The compulsion to replace the "simultaneous* happenings, as indicated
> directly by the theory, by *alternatives*, of which the theory is supposed
> to indicate the respective *probabilities*, arises from the conviction that
> what we really observe are particles - that actual events always concern
> particles, not waves."*
>
 -Erwin Schroedinger, The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Dublin
> Seminars (1949-1955) and Other Unpublished Essays (Ox Bow Press,
> Woodbridge, Connecticut, 1995), pages 19-20.
>

I would indeed observe the external world to be a featureless jelly if I
was not subjected to the rules of quantum mechanics but everything else in
the external world was, but that is not the case. Copenhagen says that when
I observe an electron in a specific quantum state I cause all the other
states that the electron could have been in to disappear without a trace,
but Many Worlds says that for every quantum state the electron could have
been in there is a quantum state of me observing the electron in that
state, and that is the least bad idea I've ever heard on how to explain
quantum weirdness.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

rcp






>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv05tHLS6BMQ0nykMspd%2B7%3DYFyAOC9WfGQ1unGDqKi957Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

['scerir' via Everything List]

Just an interesting quote.

“The idea that they [measurement outcomes] be not alternatives but *all* really 
happen simultaneously seems lunatic to him [the quantum theorist], just 
*impossible*. He thinks that if the laws of nature took *this* form for, let me 
say, a quarter of an hour, we should find our surroundings rapidly turning into 
a quagmire, or sort of a featureless jelly or plasma, all contours becoming 
blurred, we ourselves probably becoming jelly fish. It is strange that he 
should believe this. For I understand he grants that unobserved nature does 
behave this way – namely according to the wave equation. The aforesaid 
*alternatives* come into play only when we make an observation - which need, of 
course, not be a scientific observation. Still it would seem that, according to 
the quantum theorist, nature is prevented from rapid jellification only by our 
perceiving or observing it. [] The compulsion to replace the 
"simultaneous* happenings, as indicated directly by the theory, by 
*alternatives*, of which the theory is supposed to indicate the respective 
*probabilities*, arises from the conviction that what we really observe are 
particles - that actual events always concern particles, not waves."
 
-Erwin Schroedinger, The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Dublin Seminars 
(1949-1955) and Other Unpublished Essays (Ox Bow Press, Woodbridge, 
Connecticut, 1995), pages 19-20.
 
 
 

> Il 21/11/2023 16:43 +01 Jason Resch  ha scritto:
>  
>  
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023, 3:32 PM John Clark  mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 1:22 PM Jesse Mazer  > mailto:laserma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  
> > 
> > > > Depends what you mean by "couldn't be true"--my understanding is that 
> > > > Einstein's EPR paper was just asserting that there must be additional 
> > > > elements of reality beyond the quantum description
> > > 
> >  
> > Yes, Einstein thought he had proven that quantum mechanics must be 
> > incomplete because nature just couldn't be that ridiculous. But it turned 
> > out nature could be that ridiculous. The moral of the story is that being 
> > ridiculous is not necessarily the same thing as being wrong.  
> > 
>  
> EPR was ultimately right. QM, as the understood was incomplete, for it wasn't 
> acknowledged that there as an infinity of simultaneously existing states all 
> of which persisted after measurement. It was assuming that measurement 
> somehow changed things and made states disappear and do so faster than light 
> which EPR authors couldn't swallow. Their intuition proved correct, there are 
> no FTL influences.
>  
> Jason 
>  
>  
> 
> >  
> >  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> > https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis
> > brw
> >  
> >  
> > 
> > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > --
> > 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 
> > mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3bTNE_YRgRpnmVh8rxKT01A4xtDvEPr%2BRrgE6jLmoanw%40mail.gmail.com
> >  
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3bTNE_YRgRpnmVh8rxKT01A4xtDvEPr%2BRrgE6jLmoanw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer.
> > 
> 
>  
> 
> --
> 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 
> mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiGBGzi2XwOfdv0OW0SM-0TUOBtPyhiZSYXfAgm9QQKrg%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiGBGzi2XwOfdv0OW0SM-0TUOBtPyhiZSYXfAgm9QQKrg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer.
> 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1533872897.23972.1700583456959%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[Jason Resch]

On Mon, Nov 20, 2023, 3:32 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 1:22 PM Jesse Mazer  wrote:
>
> *> Depends what you mean by "couldn't be true"--my understanding is that
>> Einstein's EPR paper was just asserting that there must be additional
>> elements of reality beyond the quantum description*
>>
>
> Yes, Einstein thought he had proven that quantum mechanics* must *be
> incomplete because nature just couldn't be that ridiculous. But it turned
> out nature *could* be that ridiculous. The moral of the story is that
> being ridiculous is not necessarily the same thing as being wrong.
>

EPR was ultimately right. QM, as the understood was incomplete, for it
wasn't acknowledged that there as an infinity of simultaneously existing
states all of which persisted after measurement. It was assuming that
measurement somehow changed things and made states disappear and do so
faster than light which EPR authors couldn't swallow. Their intuition
proved correct, there are no FTL influences.

Jason



>  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
> 
> brw
>
>
>
>
>>> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3bTNE_YRgRpnmVh8rxKT01A4xtDvEPr%2BRrgE6jLmoanw%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiGBGzi2XwOfdv0OW0SM-0TUOBtPyhiZSYXfAgm9QQKrg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is unscientific nonsense??

[John Clark]

On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 5:32 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

>> Einstein thought he had proven that quantum mechanics* must *be
>> incomplete because nature just couldn't be that ridiculous. But it turned
>> out nature *could* be that ridiculous. The moral of the story is that
>> being ridiculous is not necessarily the same thing as being wrong.
>>
>
> *> Nevertheless, being ridiculous is no indication that an idea is
> correct. Evidence matters, and there is no evidence that the multiverse of
> Everett has anything to do with cosmology. In fact, there is no direct
> evidence that the quantum multiverse even exists.*
>

There is plenty of direct evidence that quantum weirdness exists, even the
father of the Copenhagen Interpretation Niels Bohr admitted that "*Anyone
who is not shocked by Quantum theory does not understand it *". Something
must be behind all that strangeness and whatever it is it must be odd, very
very odd. Yes, many world's idea is ridiculous, but is it ridiculous enough
to be true? If it's not then something even more ridiculous is. As for the
Copenhagen interpretation, I don't think it's ridiculous, I think it's
incoherent, and if you ask 10 adherents what it's saying you'll get 12
completely different answers, but they all boil down to "*just give up,
don't even try to figure out what's going on*". But I think one must try.

   John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

7c2

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv23%2BDuEDnedh_dk40W-wq7KcDM%3DtEdj58ZwSDE9jB5YnA%40mail.gmail.com.