Liz, OK, this is an extremely important issue. I agree that "we are unaware of the parts of the universal wavefunction with which we aren't entangled (correlated), and decoherence explains why this is so." That is precisely what my approach to quantum mini-spacetimes is.

But the next step is we have to discard the background spacetime notion and replace it with individual private spacetimes created as entanglement networks. But this is NOT MW, what actually happens is those mini-spacetimes merge via common events to create the single world. I know this probably isn't clear, but it's immensely important and is the theory that I propose in Part III: Elementals of my book. Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:11:31 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 29 December 2013 07:30, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net <javascript:>>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 <edga...@att.net <javascript:>>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 <edga...@att.net> 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, > > ... -- 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.