On 12/28/2013 3:17 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Brent,

Does it necessarily have to be one or the other? Could both be true in a sense? Consider how QM has a matrix formulation and a wave function formulation...

I don't think so - it would require a somewhat tortured interpretation. You might consult a theologian. But more to the point, an interpretation is not necessary to test and apply a theory. The interpretation is only of philosophical interest because it may lead to other, better theories.


On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:12 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

    You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for them.

    There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this 
    It says nothing about MW whatsoever.

    Why do you think there is a connection?

    Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement density matrix under a 
    trace (over the environment).  The diagonal them contains the probability 
values for
    the different eigenstates of the measurement operator.  So then how do you 
get from
    there to a definite result?  Do you, like Omnes, simply observe that you 
    predicted probabilities and so one of them obtains.  Or do you go with 
Evertt and
    say that all of them exist with different measures and the apparent 
randomness is an
    illusion due to our consciousness being relative to the different outcomes?


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