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.

On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> 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 <blogownern...@gmail.com>
    To:         stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>




You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to