> On 26 Apr 2018, at 16:23, [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] <javascript:> 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
Either the cut is in consciousness (Wigner, von Neumann, London & Bauer, Walker, etc.). That is a quite dualist theory which, Imo, has been refuted by Shimony. Or the cut is in between the observer and the particle (say). Or there is no cut, but then there is no collapse, and this leads to many-things theories, where the things are worlds, minds, or histories (debate on this remains possible, but with digital mechanism, they are computations, or quotient of equivalence on the set of all computations). Bruno > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- 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.
