On 5/9/2013 10:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
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.

He showed that IF the wave function separates into orthogonal components (an irreversible process) then FPI explains the observations. But the model says it never does that; it only approximates that, in certain bases. Decoherence theory tries to fill in the process by which this occurs give a statistical mechanics type account of irreversibility. But you could also take the epistemological interpretation of Peres and Fuchs instead of inventing other worlds just to save the determinism of an equation. I like MWI and Bruno's FPI idea, but without some testable prediction (not retrodiction) I don't find them compelling.


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.

Reply via email to