2014/1/2 John Clark <[email protected]> > On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >>> The wave function says everything there is to be said about how >>>> something is right now. >>>> >>> >>> >> The wave function says nothing about where the electron is right now, >>> the square of the wave function (I'm not being pedantic the distinction is >>> important) does tell you something but not enough, it can only give you >>> probable locations of the electron but it could be anywhere. >>> >> >> > Up above, you were saying MWI implies a single definite result. >> > > Forget MWI forget theory forget interpretations, whenever you perform a > experiment with photons you always get a single definite result, and the > photon always leaves a specific clearcut dot on the photographic plate and > never a grey smudge. > > > (which it does in the third person perspective), but here you are using >> the uncertainty in the first person perspective. >> > > Please, don't start with the 1p/ 3p shit, I hear enough of that from Bruno. > > > You should stick to one or the other, or at least be explicit when you >> switch between them. >> > > And you are using MWI and "the wave function" as if they were > interchangeable, they are not. If a electron hits a photographic plate and > you see a dot on the plate right there then you know which branch in the > multiverse you're in, the branch where the electron hit right there. But > you still don't know what the probability distribution was so you don't > know what the wave function squared was. And even if you did know the > function squared you still wouldn't know what the wave function itself was > because it contains imaginary numbers and so when squared 2 very different > wave functions can yield identical probability distributions. > > > There are other reasons to prefer it besides it's answer to the >> measurement problem without magical observers, including: >> - Fewer assumptions >> > > Fewer assumptions but more universes. Which are more expensive? I think > assumptions are probably more expensive so MWI is more economical, but I > could be wrong. > > > Explains how quantum computers work >> > > Other interpretations could do that too but I think Many Worlds does it in > a way that is simpler for humans to understand. That's why I think if > quantum computers ever become common Many Worlds will become the standard > interpretation, programing a quantum computer would just be too complicated > if you thought about it in other ways. > > > Fully mathematical theory (no fuzziness, or loose definitions) >> > > I agree. > > >> >No faster-than-light influences >> > > If that were true (and if MWI were realistic, and it is) then from > experiment we'd know for certain that MWI is dead wrong, we can never know > for certain that a theory is right but we can know for certain that it's > wrong. But it isn't true. >
There is no FTL in MWI... you can assert all year long or cry louder the contrary, that doesn't render it true... Quentin > > John K Clark > > > -- > 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. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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.
