Bruno, Glad we agree that decoherence falsifies collapse. That's a good start!
But decoherence also falsifies MW. First of all you have to understand what a wavefunction is. It's not a physical object. It's a description of a physical object in human math. Basically in QM its formulated as the 'answer' to a question that can be asked about a physical object. Second, properly understood, there are no 'branches' to a wavefunction. The correct interpretation of a wavefunction is not a description of a physical object (electron) smeared out in a fixed pre-existing background space common to all events, it's a description of how space can dimensionally emerge if that particle decoheres with some other particle, in other words it's the range of possibilities for the dimensional relationship that would occur if it interacted with another particle's wavefunction. Thus all this occurs not in physical space, but in logical computational space. It is only when wavefunctions actually interfere and decohere with each other that actual dimensional relationships arise, and therefore a point in a dimensional space is created. This is how dimensional spaces emerge piecewise from quantum decoherence events. So you do get many individual spacetime fragments emerging out of logical computational space by this process, but they are not separate universes, because they in turn continually merge via common events that connect and align them. The result of googles of these processes is the simulacrum of classical spacetime. It is the origin of physicality from computational space. That's the way it works.... And this model also unifies GR and QM and resolves all quantum 'paradox' at the same time, as well as explaining the source of quantum randomness, so it's an excellent model. You really need to understand it. Everett had an insight but since he didn't understand how spacetime emerges from, is actually created by, quantum events in computational information space, he followed it off into never never land... Edgar On Sunday, December 29, 2013 8:31:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 28 Dec 2013, at 19:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. > > > ? > > That is my point. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Exactly. > > > > > > Decoherence falsifies many worlds. > > Decoherence is just the contagion of superposed states to the observer/ > environment. It vindicates the many-worlds. > > Many-worlds is not an interpretation, but an easy consequence of the > linearity of the wave, and the linearity of the tensor product. > > That is so true, than when the founders got this, they introduces a > new axiom for the measurement which basically says that quantum > mechanics is wrong for the observer, to avoid the spreading of the > superposition. But that is ad hoc, and contradict the idea that > physicists obeys to physical laws. > > > > > > With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave > > functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world. > > The waves don't interact, and the superposition, by linearity, never > disappeared, and spread at light speed. > > QM-without-collapse = MW. > > Explain me with only QM how a branch of the wave could ever disappear. > > Then with comp, arithmetic contains all dreams, and QM becomes the > digital seen from a first person plural points of view. the math > confirms this up to now. This makes "mono-universe" still less > plausible. > > Bruno > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.