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.
Brent
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:12 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
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
world.
It says nothing about MW whatsoever.
Why do you think there is a connection?
Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement density matrix under a
partial
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
have
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?
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.
