On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 9:37:28 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 3:31 PM, <[email protected] <javascript:>> > 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. >
Bell showed, and experiments confirm, that our universe is non-local. I think that's the case whether or not the proposed collapse process is deterministic. But if it is deterministic, it messes up physics as Brent earlier indicated. So I suppose it can't be deterministic. And if not deterministic, I think we're back to collapse, and there doesn't seem to be any way to resolve the randomness, the resolution of which I had in mind. What is your definition of non-realistic? TIA. > > > > >> > >> 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. > There was some unique condition that gave rise to our universe. MWI has it happening wily-nily when someone performs a slit experiment in a lab (and uncountably many times). Hardly a conservative interpretation IMO. > > >> > >> 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. > I can. They can. In a SG experiment, e.g., an observation occurs when the electron's spin state is aligned, or anti-aligned to the magnetic field. > Can only a person make a observation or can a cockroach collapse the wave > function too? > Feynman is conclusive on this point. No person or cockroach needed; just an instrument to record the result. > 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. > Does every event require an observer or instrument to witness it? I think not. > > >> > >> 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.
