On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 10:34:13 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > > >>> >> >>> That's not the measurement problem, its determining if how and why >>> observation effects things. >>> >> >> > >> Not to split hairs, but why we get what we get in quantum measurements, >> and how measurement outcomes come to be what they are, are the same problem >> IMO. >> > > The measurement problem is not the ability or inability to predict exact > outcomes, > > the measurement problem is defining what is > > and > > what > > is not a measurement and > > finding the > > minimum properties a system > > must > > have to be an observer. Nondeterminism is not a problem and there is no > inconsistency at all regardless of what turns out to be true > ; > if some effects have no cause and true randomness exists then that's just > the way things are are > > and > t > here is no resulting paradox and no question that needs answering. > > > The title of this thread is about the consistency of Quantum Mechanics, > but far more important than QM is the ability of ANY theory to be > compatible with experimental results, and one of those experiments shows > the violation of Bell's Inequality. And that violation tells us that for > ANY theory to be successful at explaining how the world works AT LEAST one > of the following properties of that theory must be untrue: > > 1) Determinism > 2) Locality > 3) Realism > > Is Many Worlds deterministic? Yes in the sense that it just follows the > wave function and that is deterministic, it's only the collapse of the wave > function that is nondeterministic and that never happens in Manny Worlds. > > Is Many Worlds Local? Some say yes but I would say no because those other > worlds are about as non-local as you can get, you can't get there even with > infinite time on your side. But even if I'm wrong about locality Many > Worlds would still be in the running for a successful theory because it is > certainly not realistic. > > John K Clark >
Why not just assume the wf collapses by an as-yet unknown process? Then, unlike MWI, you have a theory within the realm of testable physics and no need to explain where the energy comes from to create those other worlds -- uncountable in a simply slit experiment -- or what part of another world needs to be created to do these other worldly measurements? Is collapse so repugnant (how so?) that one has to grasp at a cure that ostensibly is hugely worse than the alleged disease? Inquiring minds want to know. AG -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
