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 <meeke...@verizon.net> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.