Norman Samish wrote: > I read Fabric of Reality several years ago, but didn't understand it > well. I intuitively agree with Asher Peres that Deutsch's version of > MWI too-flagrantly violates Occam's Razor. Perhaps I should read it > again. > > I even attended a lecture by John Wheeler, David Deutsch's thesis > advisor. He gave me the same sense of unease that FoR did. > > While I have no better explanation for quantum mysteries, I > remain agnostic. "MWI's main conclusion is that the universe (or > multiverse in this context) is composed of a quantum superposition of > very many, possibly infinitely many, increasingly divergent, > non-communicating parallel universes or quantum worlds." (Wikipedia) > > I also can't buy "wavefunction collapse."
If you don't buy MWI (or the more modestly name "relative state" version, which is what Everett called it) then you have to "collapse" the wavefunction some way. Decoherence theory has shown that a density matrix for any instrument or observer is quickly diagonalized FAPP. So if you can just ignored those 1e-100 cross-terms you're back to ordinary probabilities. Then as Omnes' remarks, it's a probabilistic theory - which means it predicts one thing happens and the others don't. Brent Meeker --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---