On Sunday, November 16, 2014 11:08:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 16 Nov 2014, at 05:06, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:48:33 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, November 15, 2014 10:55:45 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 02:40:39PM -0800, [email protected] wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On Friday, November 14, 2014 10:09:09 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > 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'. >> >> > p.s. > >> >>> >>> Conservation of energy is a consequence of Emmy Noether's theorem >>> relating time translation invariance to energy conservation. >>> >> > a relation in a theorem doesn't advance the theorem. Conservation of > energy derives all kinds of ways I think. The value of the theorem is not > advanced by this. Because it can come about trivially. I'm sure it doesn't > here, but it isn't difficult to envisage trivial translations of something > conserved stepwise which is what invariance would be doing, to something > else conserved block-wise. > >> >>> The equivalent theorem in the quantum setting derives unitarity of the >>> SE from time translation invariance. >> >> > I don't know the equation, but is this derivation one that > involves establishing the linearity of the qm equation first? > > Does the unitarity of the SE if assumed correct rule out the wave function > collapse that is empirically observed? > > > The collapse is not empirically observed. It could be a first person > plural differentiation. The "Schroedinger kittens" experience are very > often presented as en empirical confirmation of the collapse, but in the > MW, they are seen as seeing the splitting/differentiation. >
It's observed empirically by any definition of those words and the place in scientific method at any time anywhere not near infinity theories qm interpretations that need what is observed to not be there. I've observed. I've predicted and examined it. I can tell you exactly when it will happen for a given apparatus. Above you define what is empirical observation to exclude what you don't want. Below you define progress then claim it. -- 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.
