Brent: But it's also divided up according to the probability measure, so I don't think conservation laws are violated in Everett's formulation.
Richard: I do not understand how it is divided up according to the probability measure. For example in the Schrodinger Cat experiment, the cat is 50% alive or dead every time. I read the explanation on the basis of frequency but that did not make sense to me either. On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 4:23 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/27/2013 9:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen 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 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 > light)" > > 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. > > > And it was for a long time. But recent polls of physicist have found it > be favored by a large fraction if not a plurality. > > 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. > > > That's an overly literal interpretation of the popularized version. All > those "unobserved", i.e. still coherent, events exist in superpositions. > Only decoherence resolves them (almost) to classically distinct "worlds". > And as Scott Aaronson points out they can't really be entirely distinct > since they have to interfere with each other destructively to eliminate the > cross-terms. > > 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! > > > Of course Bruno, or any mathematician, will point out that all those > numbers you mention are finite. And in any case both QM and GR assume > continuum backgrounds that imply uncountable possible states. > > Doesn't anyone ever use common sense and think through these things to > see how stupid they are? > > > But common sense gave us the flat Earth told us Darwin was wrong. > > And it violates all sorts of conservations since energy eg. is > multiplied exponentially beyond counting. > > > But it's also divided up according to the probability measure, so I don't > think conservation laws are violated in Everett's formulation. > > Geeez, it would be impossible to come up with something dumber, > especially when it is completely clear that decoherence theory falsifies it > conclusively. > > > Decoherence can only diagonalize the partial density matrix (and even that > only approximately) by tracing over the environmental variables. From an > epistemic persepective that may be enough; as Omnes says, "Quantum > mechanics is a probabilistic theory, so one should not be surprised that it > predicts probabilities.". But that does not make the Everett > interpretation wrong. > > Brent > > -- > 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.
