The equations produce the results, you are trying to impose unwarranted 
interpretations on them...


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 post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to