On 5/9/2016 12:52 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
Saibal Mitra:
And this is the core of the disagreement, you say that the results are
already there, but in the MWI this is false. In the MWI the cat is not
either dead or alive before you open the box, the superposition has
become entangled with the environment, but both branches are relevant
until you get to know the result.
It seems (to me) interesting this quote from Nicolas Gisin "Against Many-
Worlds",
ch. 4 of the paper ' Are There Quantum Effects Coming from Outside Space-time?
Nonlocality, free will and "no many-worlds" '
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.3440.pdf
"On the contrary, I do not see any explanatory power in the many worlds: it
seems
to be made just to prevent one from asking (possibly provocative) questions.
Moreover, it has built in it the impossibility of any test: all its
predictions are identical
to those of quantum theory. For me, it looks like "cushion for laziness"
(un coussin de paresse in French).
It avoids the otherwise puzzling question of, "When does the wave
function collapse? Why is a measurement different from other physical
interactions?" QBism provides one answer, but at the cost of losing a
kind of absolute objectivity. Other solutions, like Bohm and GRW,
postulate truly different physics that produce collapse.
And there is a second, decisive, reason to
reject
the many-worlds view: it leaves no space for free will."
That's a silly reason. Daniel Dennett, in his book /Elbow Room/,
explains that even Laplacian determinism leaves us all the free will
worth having.
Brent
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
