On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 3:31 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Why not just assume the wf collapses by an as-yet unknown process? >
You can do that if you want, but Bell proved that if his inequality is violated, and we now know from experiment that it is, and if that unknown process is deterministic then the world is non-local or non-realistic or both. > > > 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 > That is not unique to the MWI. In a accelerating Einsteinian universe such as ours energy is not conserved at the cosmological level. > > > Is collapse so repugnant (how so?) > It's repugnant because the mathematics say nothing about a collapse, the C openhagen people just wave there arms and say that it does when a observation is made, and they can't even say what is observation is. Can only a person make a observation or can a cockroach collapse the wave function too? And what observed the universe at the Big Bang? If it's God what is observing God? The MWI is actually very conservative, it just assumes the mathematics means what it says and it doesn't stick on a bunch of other stuff as Copenhagen does. > > > that one has to grasp at a cure that ostensibly is hugely worse than the > alleged disease > > Inquiring minds want to know. > Whatever the truth turns out to be one thing is certain, it will be weird. John K Clark -- 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.
