On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 2:33:16 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 11:24:36 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 1:16 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >>> Since your conclusions seem immensely more bizarre than collapse of the >>> wf, >>> >>> your interpretation of what the SE means must be in error. >>> >> >> It's a matter of taste I suppose. To me everything that can happen does >> happen is less bizarre than the future influencing the past and things only >> existing when I look at them. >> > > REDUX OF PREVIOUS UNREADABLE COMMENT: > For those who accept the experimental evidence for non-locality, such as > Brent and Bruce and probably Lawrence as well, it does NOT imply the future > influences the past. How did you reach this conclusion? Further, as > examples abound such as the formation of the Earth-Moon system, there were > no observers around to witness the event. Do you doubt it happened? I > contend you're misinterpreting the results of QM to make and believe such a > claim. AG >
The quantum concept of "things only exist when I look at them" originates in the double slit experiment, and is sort-of limited to situations of this type. To calculate the probabilities correctly as Feynman clearly explains in his Lectures, one must calculate |A + B|^2, not (|A|^2 + |B|^2), the latter being OK for classical physics, where A and B are the wf's or amplitudes entering slits A and B respectively. Think of the electron or photon as waves when we don't look, going through both slits and as particles when observed. One way to interpret the first term is to say, "The system is in both A and B states simultaneously, not in either state exclusively." But regardless of the words chosen, one must use the first calculation to make correct quantum predictions. Moreover, AFAIK, the MWI does not avoid this conclusion even if it uses different words. In sum, to make the general claim that QM says "things only exist when I look at them" is misleading, and for most situations like macro events, simply wrong. AG > > >> But it really doesn't matter, >> as long as there is no logical self contradiction there is nothing wrong >> with bizarre >> . >> Occam's razor doesn't say we should embrace the least bizarre theory >> , >> it says we should embrace the simplest theory >> , >> and >> one that doesn't need to explain the collapse is simpler than one that >> does. >> >> Unlike Copenhagen Many Worlds has no need to to explain how when or why >> the wave function collapse >> s >> because the hypothesized collapse has no observable consequences. The >> wave collapse is a needless complication that does nothing but get rid of >> the multiverse for people who don't like the idea of a multiverse, its >> wheels within wheels rather like the epicycles of old for people who didn't >> like the idea of the planets going around the Sun rather than the Earth. >> >> The wave function says the multiverse exists, to get rid of it additional >> complications are needed and those complications do not improve the ability >> to predict experimental results one bit >> , so they have no point. >> >> > > You keep ignoring the obvious 800 pound gorilla in the room; introducing > Many Worlds creates hugely more complications than it purports to do away > with; multiple, indeed infinite observers with the same memories and life > histories for example. Give me a break. AG > >> >> 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.
