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
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-Février (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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.