On 02 Jan 2014, at 22:06, John Clark wrote:

## Advertising

On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com>wrote:>>> The wave function says everything there is to be said about howsomething is right now.>> The wave function says nothing about where the electron is rightnow, the square of the wave function (I'm not being pedantic thedistinction is important) does tell you something but not enough, itcan only give you probable locations of the electron but it could beanywhere.> Up above, you were saying MWI implies a single definite result.Forget MWI forget theory forget interpretations, whenever youperform a experiment with photons you always get a single definiteresult, and the photon always leaves a specific clearcut dot on thephotographic plate and never a grey smudge.> (which it does in the third person perspective), but here you areusing the uncertainty in the first person perspective.Please, don't start with the 1p/ 3p shit, I hear enough of that fromBruno.

`As many pointed out, Everett's theory uses this and that point is`

`capital to understand comp generalization of it.`

`You have not answered my last posts. I don't see how you can make`

`sense of Everett without the 1p/3p distinction, still less`

`computationalism, indeed.`

Bruno

> You should stick to one or the other, or at least be explicitwhen you switch between them.And you are using MWI and "the wave function" as if they wereinterchangeable, they are not. If a electron hits a photographicplate and you see a dot on the plate right there then you know whichbranch in the multiverse you're in, the branch where the electronhit right there. But you still don't know what the probabilitydistribution was so you don't know what the wave function squaredwas. And even if you did know the function squared you stillwouldn't know what the wave function itself was because it containsimaginary numbers and so when squared 2 very different wavefunctions can yield identical probability distributions.> There are other reasons to prefer it besides it's answer to themeasurement problem without magical observers, including:- Fewer assumptionsFewer assumptions but more universes. Which are more expensive? Ithink assumptions are probably more expensive so MWI is moreeconomical, but I could be wrong.> Explains how quantum computers workOther interpretations could do that too but I think Many Worlds doesit in a way that is simpler for humans to understand. That's why Ithink if quantum computers ever become common Many Worlds willbecome the standard interpretation, programing a quantum computerwould 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 influencesIf that were true (and if MWI were realistic, and it is) then fromexperiment we'd know for certain that MWI is dead wrong, we cannever know for certain that a theory is right but we can know forcertain that it's wrong. But it isn't true.John K Clark --You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "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.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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.