On Mar 4, 8:12 pm, Andrew Soltau <andrewsol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/03/11 19:10, Brent Meeker wrote:> Collapse "appears" to instruments as
> well as people
> We don't have any evidence for that,
Of course we do
>indeed, if we take either the
> concept of Wigner's friend or Rovelli's RQM seriously,
We shouldn't take Wigner's friend as proving CCC, since it is
intended as a reductio ad absurdum of it.
And RQM doesn't remotely have that implication.
>this is not the
> case.> - that's why we can shared records of experiments and agree on them.
> Or, we can deduce those phenomena simply from the coherence of our
> personal systems.> I'm not sure what you mean by "account for" collapse.
> I mean that if there is a unitary linear dynamics, with no collapse, as
> in Everett, no physical collapse, then there is the appearance of
> collapse only 'in consciousness'.
But Everett can explain the apperarance of collapse to instruments...
he doesn't need consciousness.
> > At least one interpretation of QM, advocated by Peres, Fuchs, and
> > Omnes for example, is that the "collapse" is purely epistemological.
> > All that changes is our knowledge or model of the state and QM merely
> > predicts probabilities for this change.
> Fits my view.
> > Brent
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
For more options, visit this group at