On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:41:02 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM, <agrays...@gmail.com <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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
