On 3 January 2014 07:07, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> You can find out more and find out exactly where is is but to do that >> you're going to need to get your hands dirty and perform a experiment, then >> the squared wave function collapses from everywhere to one specific dot on >> a photographic plate. This is the measurement problem and the problem that >> the MWI elegantly solves that most other quantum interpretations do not; >> it's the only reason I think MWI is better than the competition. >> > > There are other reasons to prefer it besides it's answer to the > measurement problem without magical observers, including: > > - Fewer assumptions > - Explains more (appearance of collapse, and arguably also the Born rule > (with Gleason's theorem)) > - Explains how quantum computers work > - Fully mathematical theory (no fuzziness, or loose definitions) > - No faster-than-light influences > - Explains universe at times before there was conscious life to observe it > - Preserves CPT symmetry, time reversibility, linearity > - Is realist on things other than our observations (here is "something > else" out there, besides what is in our minds) > > I would say the evidence for MWI isn't just strong, but overwhelming, > given the evidence for QM is overwhelming and MWI is the only theory of QM > consistent with other (overwhelmingly established theories such as special > relativity). >
I await Brent's response with interest. -- 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.
