On 1/2/2014 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/1/2014 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jan 2014, at 01:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/31/2013 1:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote:
But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's
Advocate, or do you honestly not see the usefulness of multiverse
Partly playing Devil's Advocate - but doing so because I'm not convinced
Everett's MWI is the last word and because I don't like to see the hard
of predicting/explaining *this* to be fuzzed over by an easy
Your use of disparaging language to sum up the opposing position doesn't fill me
with optimism that you actually get why this hard problem may in fact have been
solved. There is no "fuzzing over" involved in the MWI, quite the reverse - you need
to "fuzz things over" if you want to get "this" out of QM as a unique solution.
Collapse of the wave function and so on -- a "fuzzy" hand-waving exercise.
That's the usual argument of MWI advocates, "It's better than collapse of the wave
function." But is it? It's only better than Copenhagen. What about Penrose? And
what about the subjective Bayesian interpretation.
I'm not 100% ken on the straw man, either. /No one /thinks the MWI is the last word,
because it isn't a TOE. But it /may/ be a good approximation (or it may not, of
?? It's an /*interpretation*/.
I disagree with this. Everett did propose a new theory. It is SWE, that is QM without
collapse. *All* interpretations of it are multi-realities. Everett is just QM, and the
Everett branches comes from not avoiding the contagion of superposition, which follows
from SWE linearity. The existence of the relative superposition is a theorem of QM.
Copenhagen is SWE+ collapse, and this is self-contradictory or quite fuzzy (what is
It is changing your knowledge of the wave-function - replacing some uncertainty with
Arguably so if the comp arithmetical quantum logic fits with the observed quantum logic.
I do appreciate Pauli and Fuchs. Where I disagree, is that they oppose this to Everett,
but I see no reason why. In fact Everett+Fuch is made consistent in the many-dreams
interpretation of arithmetic, developed by the numbers inside arithmetic.
I agree. Fuchs' approach treats the wave-function as information, which should be
consistent with comp.
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 email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.