Sure, of course. I see what you mean now. Omnes is of course correct. 
That's what the equations tell us, that the results will be probabilistic. 
It's Everett who is off his rocker here by trying to impose some outlandish 
alternative interpretation....


On Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:33:20 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
> On 12/28/2013 4:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
> > Brent, 
> > 
> > You are implying there is some difficulty in calculating specific 
> decoherence results 
> > yet the people who are performing experiments in decoherence have no 
> such problem in 
> > calculating them with no reference at all to either of your 
> interpretations or choosing 
> > between them... The math works just fine in our single world and 
> produces predictable 
> > results... 
> But it produces probabilities.  And the experiments confirm that the 
> measured values are 
> random with the distribution predicted.  But each measurement only 
> produces one of the 
> probable values.  So the question is how do you get from the 
> probabilities, which is what 
> QM+decoherence predicts, to actual realized unique values?  Omnes just 
> says what do you 
> expect QM is a probabilistic theory.  Everett says they all happen every 
> time with 
> different values and we 'happen' every time as observers with correlated 
> experiences. 
> What do you say? 
> 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