Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you 
don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what 
you are saying.

As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience 
whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum 
equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, or in quantum 
theory = the actual equations. Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave 
function collapse to rest long ago but the self-evident experience of the 
present moment cannot be falsified by any theory.

Please explain why "Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you 
must also reject special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster 
than light, (or as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of 

I'm not familiar with this result and something is clearly wrong with it. 

Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all 
time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was 
proposed. Do you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically 
that every quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe 
spawns an entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event 
in every one of those new universes does the same. This immediately 
exponentially escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into 
uncountable new universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since 
over 14.7 billion years! Just try to calculate the number of new universe 
that now exist. It's larger than the largest number that could ever be 
imagined or even written down. There is not enough paper in the universe, 
or enough computer memory in the entire universe to even express a number 
this large! Doesn't anyone ever use common sense and think through these 
things to see how stupid they are? And it violates all sorts of 
conservations since energy eg. is multiplied exponentially beyond counting. 
Geeez, it would be impossible to come up with something dumber, especially 
when it is completely clear that decoherence theory falsifies it 


On Friday, December 27, 2013 11:37:22 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net<javascript:>
> > wrote:
> Richard, and Bruno,
> I agree with Richard here if that is actually what Bruno is doing. 
> Attributing wavefunction collapse to human observation was certainly one of 
> the most moronic 'theories' supposedly intelligent scientists have ever 
> come up with. It's right up there with block time, 
> That's funny, I've always lumped together "presentist" theories of time 
> with wave function collapse, since they both have the same motivation and 
> make the same error: they explain away why we are aware of only one world, 
> or one point in time, when there is no reason to add these additional 
> suppositions, since the theory itself tells us why we are unaware of other 
> times and other branches of the wave function.
> "Nor can I ever sufficiently admire Copernicus and his followers.  They 
> have through sheer force of intellect, done such violence to their own 
> senses, as to prefer what reason told them over what sensible experience 
> plainly showed them." -- Galileo
> and many worlds nonsense.
> Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you must also reject 
> special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster than light, (or 
> as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of light). So what 
> are you giving up: single outcomes of measurements or no faster-than-light 
> influences?
> Surely Bruno can't be basing reality on human experience? After all 
> reality worked just fine for multiple billions of years before humans.
> The UDA doesn't base reality on experience, it bases reality on relations 
> between numbers. All we see emerges from this: including conscious 
> experience and appearances of physical realities.
> Jason
> On Friday, December 27, 2013 10:34:57 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
> Bruno,
> I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or 
> whatever) of humans
> strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human 
> consciousness.
> Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this list.
> Richard
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> <blockquote style="mar
> ...

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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to