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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
