On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: *> If you find collapse of the wf anathema, instead of the MWI why not > just assume the branches that aren't measured in this world, dissipate into > the environment as I think Decoherence theory postulates? MWI doesn't tell > us what will be measured in this or any other particular world, so what's > the downside to this hugely simpler way of avoiding collapse?* >
How is everything except one value dissipating any different from everything collapsing into one value? And what does nature consider to be a measurement and what does it not? A change is simpler than a measurement and a theory without an assumption is simpler than a theory that needs an assumption. I say we don't really need an assumption of collapse (or dissipation) so get rid of it. 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.
