Brent, The equations produce the results, you are trying to impose unwarranted interpretations on them...
EDgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:12:47 PM UTC-5, Brent 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.
