On 1/2/2014 5:35 PM, LizR wrote:
On 3 January 2014 14:31, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:


    Then I'll start by saying I don't reject MWI, I just have reservations 
about it, not
    so much that it's wrong, but that it doesn't really solve the problems it 
claims to
    - which implies criticism of the position that MWI has solved all the 
problems of
    interpreting QM.  A lot of the above claimed advantages knocking down straw 
men
    built on naive interpretations of Bohr.  Some are just assumptions, e.g 
that physics
    must be time reversible and linear.

I thought linearit was probabilities adding up to one, which isn't a radical 
assumption???

I didn't say it was radical. The SE is linear which means the linear combination of any two solutions is also a solution. It's sufficient to preserve probability, but not necessary.


Time reversibility is an observed phenomenon in (almost) all particle interactions, so surely not an assumption at all?

CPT symmetry is a consequence of Lorentz symmetry.  But CP is violated...so.

Brent

--
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.

Reply via email to