On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 11:14 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 5/9/2013 2:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 08 May 2013, at 22:46, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 5/8/2013 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 08 May 2013, at 11:56, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 07 May 2013, at 20:55, John Clark wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, May 6, 2013 John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> there is no random decay or anything else >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no way you can deduce that from pure reason and the >>>>>> experimental >>>>>> evidence strongly indicates that you are wrong about that. >>>>>> >>>>>> only things that happen without our - so far - accessed explanation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And thanks to experiments involving Bell's inequality we know for a >>>>>> fact >>>>>> that if apparently random things happen for a reason they can't be >>>>>> local >>>>>> reasons; for example the reason the coin came up heads right now is >>>>>> because >>>>>> a billion years in the FUTURE a butterfly like creature on a planet >>>>>> in the >>>>>> Andromeda Galaxy flapped it's wings twice instead of 3 times. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Hi Bruno, >>>>> >>>>> You assume the collapse of the wave. There are experimental evidences >>>>>> against it, >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Could you elaborate? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I was thinking to quantum erasure experiments. We can make a wave >>>> "collapse", by some measurement, and still make it cohere again, by erasing >>>> the memory of the experience/the result of the experiment. If observation >>>> did collapse or select irreversibly, that could not make sense. >>>> >>> >>> But it isn't a "measurement" if you can make it cohere again. A >>> measurement is irreversbile, "erasing" means reversing the process that, if >>> it were not erased could have become a measurement. >>> >> >> You beg the question. Nothing is irreversible. >> > > On the contrary it is you who are begging the question. You are claiming > that measurements are reversible because your theory says they are > reversible, even though in practice they are not, and this shows your > theory is right. > > > For practical reason macroscopic measurement seems irreversible, as we >> cannot track the leaking of information, and can no more practically erase >> it. Quantum erasure algorithm would not work if measurement were >> irreversible, and what such local measurement, where we can still erase the >> information and get back to coherence shows that the collapse is not well >> defined. Of course Einstein already shows that the collapse cannot be >> covariant, and Bohr acknowledged that it cannot be a physical event, but >> then why to introduce it to begin with (except the wanting to be unique). >> > > Yes, it's a mathematical operation. In decoherence theory, it's taking a > trace. I'm quite willing to entertain the idea of FPI, but it's till > randomness. > > Brent > > My preference for the MWI has nothing to do with a personal preference for determinism or indeterminism. I prefer MWI because it is a literal reading of the equations, free of any additional of baggage. Von Neumann thought the extra baggage was required to make the model match our observations, but Everett later showed that step was unnecessary. The model (free of additional baggage) predicts the same observations as the model with it. Since it has been shown to be unnecessary let's dispense with it already! Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
