On 10/20/2012 3:10 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:19:46 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 10/18/2012 2:16 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
> Is anyone here aware of the following?
> Does it have implications for MW interpretations of quantum
> I'd love to see comments about this.
This article is rubbish. The writer does not understand the
subtleties involved and does not understand that nothing like the
was found to be true.
I agree. I see what they were trying to get at: Measurement can cause
uncertainty but not all of the uncertainty. They leave open the
question of what does cause the uncertainty - i.e. perhaps the very
nature of quantum is uncertain or immeasurable.
The problem of course is in the assumption "we're just going to make a
*weak* measurement that won't have an effect on it". Sigh. I'll just
stand in the bathroom with you...you won't even know I'm here. You
can't fool the fabric of the universe. You can spoof it maybe, but you
can't hide from it entirely.
Uncertainty is in the geometric/statistical relationship between
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