On 4/26/2018 4:14 PM, [email protected] wrote:
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. AGDecoherence 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? AGI don't. Why should I? BrentI could swear that you wrote above that decoherence describes the splitting of worlds, so I gave you an example of decoherence
You didn't give an example of decoherence. Where's the decoherence in an electron flying through a divergent magnetic field?
Brent
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.
