Hi Brent,

   Allow me to use your words directly:

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?

  AFAIK, the first possibility could be seen as what a single observer
might perceive and calculate of its world. The latter tries to take
the perceptions of many observers and organize them into a single
structure. I see no necessary conflict between them.



On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:56 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

>  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 <meeke...@verizon.net> 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 a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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.

Reply via email to