On Mar 4, 8:12 pm, Andrew Soltau <[email protected]> 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 protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
