On 29 December 2013 07:30, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > Bruno, > > Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many > worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave > functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world. > > The MWI assumes a background space-time in which the universal wavefunction evolves deterministically, so in that sense it is a single world. However, we are unaware of the parts of the universal wavefunction with which we aren't entangled (correlated), and decoherence explains why this is so. Hence decoherence is an *alternative* to collapse which *supports* the (so-called) many worlds interpretation.
On 29 December 2013 07:30, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > Bruno, > > Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many > worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave > functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world. > > Edgar > > > > On Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:48:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 28 Dec 2013, at 01:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >> >> Jason, >> >> To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just >> interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual >> (measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles. >> >> Decoherence is a well verified mathematical theory with predictable >> results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it actually >> does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence conclusively falsifies the >> very notion of collapse. >> >> >> OK, but decoherence solve the problem in the Many-World picture. >> Decoherence does not justify an unique physical universe. It explains only >> why the universe seems unique and quasi-classical, and seems to pick the >> position observable as important for thought process and measurement. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> Edgar >> >> >> >> On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason 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 >> >> ... > > -- > 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.
