Bruno, To answer your last question please refer to the new topic I just started "Another stab at how spacetime emergences computationally" or something like that. I forget exactly how I titled it...

Best, Edgar On Sunday, December 29, 2013 12:36:05 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 29 Dec 2013, at 14:52, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Bruno, > > Glad we agree that decoherence falsifies collapse. That's a good start! > > But decoherence also falsifies MW. > > > Non collapse = many-worlds, to me. If I make a quantum choice, by QM, I > will put myself in a superposition and execute the two alternative of the > experience. If one of the two terms disappears, there is collapse. > > > > First of all you have to understand what a wavefunction is. It's not a > physical object. > > > QM is the assumption that particles and fields follows some wave equation. > If you doubt that the physical reality is described by the wave, you doubt > QM. And this has nothing to do with the interpretation of QM. > > > > > It's a description of a physical object in human math. > > > You confuse the theories and what the theory are intended for. > > > > > > Basically in QM its formulated as the 'answer' to a question that can be > asked about a physical object. > > > That's like defining an atom by the set of experimental set up capable of > analysing it. > > Then you refer all the times to a reality, and I still don't know what you > assume. > > > > > Second, properly understood, there are no 'branches' to a wavefunction. > > > Relatively to some observable, there are. What is your semantic of a > quantum decision? > > > > > 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. > > > That's not so bad way to see the things, perhaps. It looks like explaining > gravity through quantum entanglements. I am OK with this. In physics (which > I don't assume any theory, as a constraints in the mind-body problem). > In no way this makes alternate realities in oblivion. > > > > > 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 i > > ... -- 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.