On 03 Jan 2014, at 02:35, LizR wrote:

On 3 January 2014 14:31, meekerdb <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???

Linearity bears on the waves or solution of the SWE. Probabilities are the square of the wave, and are not linear. The problem comes from that, but that aspect of the problem is more or less solved by Gleason theorem, or even good approximations of it, like in the (unknown) very old work by Paulette Destouches-FĂ©vrier (a french and early serious philosopher of QM).

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

We cannot observed something like time reversibility. We can only inferred it from a finite number of observations, and then assume a theory which either assumes it at the start, or explains it from other assumptions, or perhaps refute it. We can observe facts, not theories. I guess you were just in the hyperquick mode of talk :)



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