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
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.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.