Hi Richard,
There seems to be a deep reason why we observe a "classical
universe"! The point is that MWI is only 'wrong' it how people interpret
QM to try to make QM 'just very complicated CM'. There is no unique way
to project a classical universe out of a QM wave function of
sufficiently large dimension. Thus I am thinking that if we assume many
separable and finite QM systems and ask them "What would you agree on?",
that you can get something close to a unique classical universe that is
unique to that set of QM systems. Thus we might get the appearance of a
unique classical world, but it is not "the unique classical world".
On 11/6/2012 7:09 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Hi Stephen
Although I dislike his politics, I do like his physics and I read his
blog every day. The reality of Lubos Motl is entirely 1p and therefore
subjective. For example, when Lubos says "The only thing that
contradicts the subjective nature of these answers is people's
stubbornness, bigotry, and psychological obstacles preventing people
from abandoning classical physics." he fails to mention, as he has
previously, that MWI is a means to reduce quantum physics to classical
physics.
Richard
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I rarely forward an entire blog post, but this is a good one!
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Lubos Motl's reference frame
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 02:04:55 +0000
From: The Reference Frame <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
snip
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
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.
