On Friday, November 14, 2014 10:09:09 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 01:33:15PM -0500, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 Richard Ruquist <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > > OK, I will accept that information cannot be communicated faster than > the > > > speed of light. However, even in single particle EPR experiments MWI > > > requires the creation of two particles for every one particle. That > doubles > > > the energy requirement. Considering the total number of particles > created > > > in the huge number of interactions resulting in what MWI calls new > > > universes, where does all this extra energy come from. Personally I > prefer > > > to believe in the conservation of energy than MWI. > > > > > > > The conservation of energy is not a law of logic, according to Noether's > > theorem it's just the result of the laws of physics remaining the same > > during different times, and in any universe where physical law is the > same > > in different parts of it there must be a law of conservation of > momentum. > > The laws of physics remain the same in different regions of spacetime in > > our universe so we have both those conservations laws, but there is no > > reason to think they would remain the same throughout the entire > > multiverse, and thus no reason to think those conservation laws are > > fundamental. > > The Multiverse equivalent of conservation of energy is unitarity of > the evolution of Schroedinger's equation. Or equivalently, that the > Hamiltonian is Hermitian. >
So conservation of energy is a concept that undergoes complex translations to something completely different. And 'locality' is the concept that has to have a 1:1 mapping from QM one world to the other. And of course that selection of that 1:1 mapping is the only reason we need to have a multiverse with the properties it has. That mapping decision. So what is the reasoning why locality has to be mapped as that, and conservation of energy is good to map to alien structure. There isn't a reasoning Russell is there? It's just an arbitrary preference, or more feasibly it's just what happens to be 'intuitive'. Another arbitrary link is conservation of energy to the wave particle that way. You only say that because, again, INTUITIVELY there is sorta kinda a parallel. You'll have nothing more..no derivation. No proof that this the is the mapping as proof it can't be the set of all the others. Tell me this. In science it is normal to expect that it is possible to derive the general form of a set of equations that represent some partial form, just so long as those equations are known, the sense in which partiality, and the translation logic to the multiverse. How come none of you can do this work? Or have even tried? -- 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.
