On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:41:02 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM, <[email protected] <javascript:>> > 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? >
How is everything except one value in this world (the others dissipating into the environment), WORSE than conjuring a multitude of universes for the other values to be measured? I fail to see anything "conservative" about this pov. When you pull a slot machine, is it really conservative to assert 10 million other universes come into being (along with the player!) for the other unrealized outcomes in this universe? > 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. > By replacing Decoherence with MWI seems to raise hugely more insoluble problems than simply using the Decoherence model of dissipation of the unrealized outcomes. > > 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.
