On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 10:25:29 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 4/26/2018 2:33 PM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:09:48 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 4/26/2018 7:23 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 4:12:41 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4/25/2018 7:44 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 2:17:31 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 4/25/2018 6:39 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> *On its face it's absurd to think the SoL is invariant for all >>>> observers regardless of the relative motion of source and recipient, but >>>> it >>>> has testable consequences. The MWI has no testable consequences, so it >>>> makes no sense to omit this key difference in your historical comparisons >>>> with other apparent absurdities in physics. Moreover when you factor into >>>> consideration that non locality persists in the many worlds postulated -- >>>> assuming you accept Bruce's analysis -- what exactly has been gained by >>>> asserting the MWI? Nothing as far as I can tell. And the loss is >>>> significant as any false path would be. AG* >>>> >>>> >>>> It's one possible answer to the question of where the Heisenberg cut is >>>> located (the other is QBism). It led to the theory of decoherence and >>>> Zurek's theory of quantum Darwinism which may explain Born's rule. >>>> >>>> Brent >>>> >>> >>> * I've always found the Heisenberg Cut to be a nebulous concept, a kind >>> of hypothetical demarcation between the quantum and classical worlds. * >>> >>> >>> That's the problem with it; it doesn't have an objective physical >>> definition. Bohr regarded it as a choice in analyzing an experiment; you >>> put it where ever was convenient. >>> >>> *What kind of boundary are we talking about, and how could the MWI shed >>> any light on it, whatever it is? AG * >>> >>> >>> In MWI there is no Heisenberg cut; instead there's a splitting of worlds >>> which has some objective location in terms of decoherence. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> The Heisenberg Cut is too vague and ill-defined to shed light on >> anything, and to say the MWI is helpful is adding another layer of >> confusion. AG >> >> >> Decoherence is a specific well-defined physical process and it describes >> the splitting of worlds. There is still some question whether it entails >> the Born rule, but at worst the Born rule remains as a separate axiom. >> >> Brent >> > > Let's say an electron goes through an SG device. IIUC, its spin state > becomes entangled with the spin wf's of the device. How do you infer > splitting of worlds from this? AG > > > I don't. Why should I? > > Brent >
I could swear that you wrote above that decoherence describes the splitting of worlds, so I gave you an example of decoherence and asked how it describes the splitting of worlds. If YOU don't infer it, then someone you highly respect does. AG -- 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.
