On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 3:45 PM, <agrayson2...@gmail.com> 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 >
It's not the SWE itself that gives the probabilities, you've got to square of the absolute value of the wave function to find the probability of finding a particle at that point . I'm not splitting hairs this is important because the SWE contains imaginary numbers (square root of -1) so 2 very different wave functions can yield the exact same probability at a point when you square it. So even if you know the probability you can't know the unique wave function that produced it because there is no such unique function. > > prior to the measurement. If you want to give the equation a life after > measurement > [...] > If you want to say the equation has no life after measurement then you're going to have to explain exactly what a measurement is and what term in the SWE it interacts with causing it to self destruct. > > > Do you know about Gleason's result which Brent mentioned. > Yes I mentioned it a few days ago. Gleason's theorem says that in 3 spatial dimensions only the square of the absolute value of Schrodinger's wave (the Born rule), and not the cube or anything else, can yield a probability without inconsistencies . S o the real question isn't why is the Born rule a square but why is it a probability at all ? And Gleason's theorem is pure mathematics, Many Worlds give it a physical interpretation, the best one I know of. > > > He seemed to claim it negated the main claim of MWI, that everything that > CAN happen, DOES happen. > I don't see how. > > 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. > Both Bell's inequality and the Leggett–Garg inequality are violated, that is not a theory that is a experimental fact, so quantum mechanics, or any successful theory that comes after it, is going to have to incorporate that fact, and there is no way to do that without being weird; or to be more precise, without being grossly non-intuitive, radically different from everyday experience, and at odds with common sense (although not at odds with logic). >> >> >> 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 > I know you have. And I've been asking all along exactly what is it that collapses the wave function. If its not an observer and its not a measurement and its not consciousness then what is it? > > > did MWI derive Born's rule, or did it simply argue for its plausibility? > I wish I could say MWI derived it but that would be going too far, but it did a much better job at arguing for its plausibility than Copenhagen. 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.
