On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:57 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > The weak case for the MWI stands on its own; nothing to do with string > theory. In the latter, if you believe it, there are some number, possibly > infinite, of possible universes, and they are all "natural"; that is, > produced by nature. In MWI, as the Joe the Plumber example shows, the > creations seem unnatural, . >
Joe is no more unnatural that any other part of the universe, he obeys the laws of physics just like everything else and if the SWE is correct then anything that Joe can do Joe does do. But in effect in MWI there ARE measurements regardless of what you want to > call them. > And in at least one of the MWI universes there is a conscious being, but like measurement that has nothing to do with it. > > > The problem with adding terms to the SWE is that it would, I think, amount > to asserting the existence of a local hidden variable. > There are certainly problems in doing that but they are your problems not mine. T he Schrodinger Wave Equation says absolutely nothing about collapsing and yet you insist it does, so like it or not you're going to have to add terms to it. And good luck with that. > > How many times do I have to remind you that consciousness has nothing to > do with it > ? > 42. > *> And by the way, the only reason string theory came up with 10^500 and >> not a infinite number is because it assumes that neither space nor time is >> continuous, but nobody knows if that assumption is valid.* >> > > True, but if space, say, is not continuous, how is motion possible? > The integers are not continuous but they are possible, and you can move from 3 to 5 by just adding 2, maybe space is like that. Or maybe not, nobody knows. But if space and time are continuous then string theory predicts a infinite number of universes just like Everett. > > Does Tegmark take into account different orders of infinity in his > calculations? > Everett originally thought there were a non-denumerable infinite number of other worlds like the number of points on a line. A few years later Neill Graham tried to reformulate the theory so you'd only need a countably infinite number of branches like the number of integers, and at first Everett liked the idea but later rejected it and concluded you couldn't derive probability by counting universes. Eventually even Graham seems to have agreed and abandoned the idea that the number of universes was so small you could count them. Infinity can cause problems in figuring out probability but Everett said his theory could calculate what the probability any event could be observed in any branch of the multiverse, and it turns out to be the Born Rule which means the probability of finding a particle at a point is the squaring of the absolute value of the Schrodinger Wave function at that point. The Born Rule has been shown experimentally to be true but the Copenhagen Interpretation just postulates it, Everett said he could derive it from his theory it "emerges naturally as a measure of probability for observers confined to a single branch (like our branch)". He proved the mathematical consistency of this idea by adding up all the probabilities in all the branches of the event happening and getting exactly 100%. T heoretical physicist Dieter Zeh said Everett may not have rigorously derived the Born Rule but he did justify it and showed it "as being the only reasonable choice for a probability measure if objective reality is represented by the universal wave function [Schrodinger's wave equation]". Rigorous proof or not that's more than any other quantum interpretation has managed to do. 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.
