On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 5:26:32 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:15 AM, <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > > > >> The fundamental unproven assumption, and IMO the core fallacy of the MWI, >> is the belief that what CAN occur, necessarily MUST will occur. >> > > The > > fundamental > > assumption of the MWI is that the > > Schrodinger > Wave > > Equation > means what it says and says what it means. The > > fundamental > > assumption > of Copenhagen is that > Schrodinger > forgot to put a "except" and a "however" into his equation. >
Solutions of the SWE give the probabilities of getting possible measurement outcomes prior to the measurement. If you want to give the equation a life after measurement, why not do it in THIS world where the probability wave becomes entangled with the environment? Why the need for other worlds? MWI seems to make a difficult problem much worse. Can't you see that? ... Do you know about Gleason's result which Brent mentioned. He seemed to claim it negated the main claim of MWI, that everything that CAN happen, DOES happen. AG > > >> > >> I don't object to unknown natural processes creating universes, but when >> a human is claimed to have the ability to do it >> .... >> > > A human is just as natural as any other process. > > > > >> > >> how do you justify this apparent absurdity? >> > > Experimental results have proven beyond all doubt that the fundamental > laws of physics *ARE* absurd but don't complain to me, complain to God > about it if you know His current Email address, He used to be on AOL but I > think He changed it. > The idea of general covariance as a principle for understanding the natural world is not in the least absurd. You seem to adopt a pov which reminds me of religious zealots, who defend poorly founded ideas by appeals to ignorance of God's behavior. AG > > >> > >> I was asserting is that in Copenhagen you don't need a conscious observer >> to get a measurement outcome. >> > > Show me how to measure something without anybody doing any measuring and > show me the new term you added to the Schrodinger Equation that causes it > to collapse when a measurement is taken. > I've been saying all along that a conscious observer is not needed to create or destroy the interference, which is what the issue of conscious observers is about. IOW, collapse or no collapse has nothing to do with the existence of humans. Of course, one needs a human to set up the measurement device. That was never an issue. AG > > >>> >> >>> T >>> he Schrodinger Wave Equation >>> says absolutely nothing about collapsing and yet you insist it does, >>> >> >> > >> I never made that assertion. I just said we observe a collapse >> > > So > t > he Schrodinger Wave Equation > doesn't collapse we just observe it collapsing but conscious observers > have nothing to do with it?? I said the laws of physics were absurd I did > not say they were paradoxical. > > > >> >> >>> 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%. >>> >> >> > >> Interesting. But how can he add them up if there are uncountably many >> universes? >> > > That's what calculus is for. > > I know. For some reason or other I was assuming the probabilities were estimated statistically whereas the set of possible outcomes is uncountable. BTW, did MWI derive Born's rule, or did it simply argue for its plausibility? Even the latter would be an interesting result, but not nearly enough to make the interpretation palatable. 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.
