I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption which explains how we come to measure discrete values.
On 31 March 2014 16:27, <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote: >>> >>> The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? >>> >>> I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly >>> apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the fact >>> other interpretations had similar flaws; as if the fact someone else is ill >>> would make you less ill yourself. I think in the world of QM >>> interpretations, with bugger all evidence to decide between them, the game >>> is to even out the playing field in terms of flaws and then chase >>> parsimony. Ofcourse, whether an infinite set of worlds is more or less >>> parsimonious than just one + a few hidden variables, or one + a spooky >>> wave function collapse, depends very much on what definition of >>> parsimonious you find most fitting. >>> >> >> MWI is refuted by the massive totally unexamined - some unrealized to >> this day - assumptions built in at the start. >> >> >> ? >> >> >> MWI seems to me to be the literal understanding of QM (without collapse). >> It is also a simple consequence of computationalism, except we get a >> multi-dreams and the question remains open if this defines a universe, a >> multiverse, or a multi-multiverses, etc. (results points toward a >> multiverse though). >> > > How can 'without collapse' in any sense be literal? Collapse is > an empirically observed fact. OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould > the empirically observed fact actually not be. > > But would even that alone have been remotely near the ballpark of things > taken seriously, had there not been extreme quantum strangeness > irreconcilable at that time, with the most core, most > fundamental accomplishments of science to date? > > MWI is an extreme explanation that makes the universe infinity more > complex and undiscoverable than it was before. An intolerably > extreme theory unprecedented in all science, to be taken seriously, > requires an even more intolerable crisis. And it just so happens at that > very same point, such an extremity confronted science...quantum > strangeness. > > But hold on a mo...I said MWI blasted complexity to the infinite limit. > But that isn't true is it? MWI is Occam consistent, so the complexity > malarkey is refuted good and proper. I will gladly stand corrected on that > then. But you would agree, wouldn't you, that were it not for that Occam > argument MWI would be placed in an untenlaable position? > > Glad you can agree about that. You should all really be able to agree > about the hard-linking of MWI and quantumht strangeness. There's no reason > why believing MW should obscure this fact. > > And.....that Occam argument. What is that based on again, without which > it wouldn't be viable. Yes that's right, it's quantum strangeness. None of > the other stuff factors in much at all. > - > Hundreds....possibly uncountably so...of largely unrealized, unexamined, > assumptions are fundamental in MWI construction from Q > > I have pointed this out in the past. People typically try to rebut this > basically the same way you try here, involving denying MWI is intrinsically > linked to quantum strangeness in multiple, massive ways. I've listed some > above. Each one of the examples above, demonstrate a way MWI would never > have happened, or would be rendered untenable, where it not for some > defence founded exclusively on quantum strangeness. > > At ther times I've shown how it is impossible to render MWI without > implicitly making several assumptions about local realism, as to its > objective truth AS WE PERCEIVE IT, it's priority in relation to other > conceptions on scales of what is fundamental, and so on. > > It's just shocking - it used to be disturbing also - how none of you > are willing to acknowledge the defining linkage of MWI and quantum > strangeness. Despite massive evidence through multi[le dimensions from me. > Despite obviousness. Despite complete failure to date of any one of you to > refute any one of the of the hard linkages (I.e. MWI would not exist or > would be thrown out without that link) that I've given. > > Despite the fact nothing new is ever said...the same arguments just get > repeated. Despite all of them, I think, totally demolished and refuated by > a quantum strangeness dependency. > > Like Bruno's repeat below of this argument QM is a direct consequence of > these things and nothing else. > > > >> Local realism is not part of QM assumption. It is a direct consequence of >> the linearity of the Schroedinger Equation, and the linearity of the tensor >> products. >> > h > Yeah? So you think that because some equations have a linearity character > - which may be important, may be puzzling. But because of this, you say, > thiis feature alone is enough to deny the reality of what is consistently > the empirically observed collapse of the wave function. To such an extreme > priority this denial of objective fact be true, science would be willing to > construct an infinite multiverse around the denial ofje empirically > observed obective reality, just so as to make it work? > > You honestly believe that? Is there precedence for something like this? > No. It'blacks Bruno. There's nothing about those equations that > categorically rules out collapse events. Ciolapse eents are not even shown > lower in priority. The equations in that model recur. So what > l > You have no case for MWle the result of these sequences as you claim. You > have no realistic, plausible case. > > Yet you keep repeating it. And it's pretty clear why..what is in your > head. What is true, is that MWI conceivably does follow to some high level > extHoent from these equations and a range of assumptions then made. > > But that's neither here nnor there Bruno. Evolution can be derived in all > sorts of ways. New ways of deriving things parre always emerging. But that > is not the difficult part of this. Would that derivation alone have been > sufficient for the extremes of MWI to become a serious contender? > > Science is littered with equations that imply or fail to imply science. > Newton's a magical action at a distance. Newton knew it was a problem, but > it was a profound far reaching of hundreds of solutions. For one new > problem. A good deal. Science was willing to leave that problem right at > the core of his theory for more than 300 years. > > How much do you want to bet I can't come up with a multiverse explanation > that clears up Newtons non-local problem? > ca > You ha ve not made your case. You have not seen the problem with how you > try to make a case. You keep repeating this refuted, frankly daft argument. > Yes...you can envisage MWI from an issue with thosoe equations. Big deal. > Show that thei lineaity of those equations alone is enough, to drop > empirical observation and invent a multiverse just to make the denial stand > up. Show it. Show a precedent. Make an explicit argument thaet > acknowledgess the challenge and its importance > e d > > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> -- > 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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
