From: Brent Meeker Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2011 3:09 PM To:
firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING
was Another TOE short paper
On 3/6/2011 7:18 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Mar 4, 7:10 pm, Brent Meeker<meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
Collapse "appears" to instruments as well as people - that's why we can
shared records of experiments and agree on them. I'm not sure what you
mean by "account for" collapse. 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.
Such epistemological theories need to be carefully distinguished from
Right. Epistemological "collapse" is nothing but a change in
information that causes us to change our description.
Is the "causes" word even necessary? Would it not be accurate to say
that a change in information = a change in our description, unless you are
assuming some sort of pluralistic 1st person view, i.e. from the point of
view of many (a fixed set of observers): 'collapse' is nothing but a change
in the information common to all that "causes' (or necessitates!) a change
in the description of each individual to remain a viable member of the
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