I do not know if it matters but quantum mechanics is based on the Dirac equation, not Shrodinger's equation
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Jason, >> >> 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 >> > > Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the > exclusion of all others? If so, please explain how this is self-evident. > > >> whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum >> equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, >> > > I agree with this. But then why isn't it also "outlandish" to presume > past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? > It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function > collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we > are aware of from our particular vantage point. > > To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of > quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose > that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our > vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points > in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion > of all others. This "us-centered" thinking is how I see presentism. It says > that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others. > > >> or in quantum theory = the actual equations. >> > > If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations > (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is > only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to > restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I > have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary. > > >> Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long >> ago >> > > > You need to clarify here. Decoherence is used by some to say when collapse > happens (without needing observers). Hence, collapse is still treated as a > real phenomenon (just one not triggered by observation). Others, use > decoherence in the context of many-worlds to justify the "appearance of > collapse", while maintaining that the wave function never collapses. > > If you are saying collapse doesn't happen or is not real, then that is de > facto "many-worlds". > > > >> but the self-evident experience >> > > As I said a few posts ago, you cannot use your experience to rule out that > more than one present exists, and therefore you cannot use your experience > to rule out that all points in time exist. > > >> of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory. >> > > The exclusive existence of a unique present contradicts special relativity. > > >> >> 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 >> light)" >> >> I'm not familiar with this result >> > > I am referring to Bell's theorem: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem > explained well here: > http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm > > It is a statistical proof that no system of local hidden variables can > explain the statistics of experimentally observed quantum measurements. > Without local hidden variables, there remain two possible explanations: > 1. measuring one entangled particle instantly and immediately effects the > state of the other particle > 2. when the state of the particle is measured, there is not one definite > outcome: multiple outcomes result from the measurement > > > >> and something is clearly wrong with it. >> > > You are welcome to try to find a flaw in it, but no one has in the many > decades since its publication. > > >> Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all >> time, >> > > It is only QM, without wave function collapse. > > Above you said wave function collapse was ridiculous. So if if it > ridiculous and you get rid of it, you are back to many-worlds. Which is > less ridiculous? > > >> and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was proposed. >> > > Unfortunately it was, but despite that it re-emerged and has been ever > growing in popularity. Feynman, Gell-man, Steve Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, > Erwin Shrodinger, etc. all came to accept it. > > If you reject many-worlds, you must give up: locality, causality, > determinism, special relativity, time-symmetry, time-reversibility, > linearity in QM, and realism. Further, you are unable to explain the > operation of quantum computers. > > >> Do you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every >> quantum event that ever occurred 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. >> > > Not quite. It implies that the properties of particles can be > multi-valued, and when such a particle interacts with another the result > can be that the other particle too, acquires multi-valued properties as a > result of the interaction. > > A slightly more comprehensible way of looking at this is merely that all > possibilities already exist out there, and when we learn new information it > causes our consciousness to differentiate. See: > http://www.weidai.com/qm-interpretation.txt or Russel Standish's book > http://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html (available as a free e-book). > > >> 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. >> > > Should we similarly use the vast number of stars to rule out the idea that > stars are like our sun, only very far away? After all, it means there is an > absolutely HUGE number of solar systems and planetary systems out there, > which is simply TOO BIG for anyone to contemplate. Things would be so much > simpler if we just kept the idea that stars are holes in the floor of > heaven. > > >> 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. >> > > Energy is conserved in each branch, which is all our conservation laws > were designed to handle. > > >> Geeez, it would be impossible to come up with something dumber, >> especially when it is completely clear that decoherence theory falsifies it >> conclusively. >> > > I think you are mistaken on this. > > Jason > > >> >> Edgar >> >> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
