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 <[email protected] > <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 [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.
