On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 5:08:51 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 5/25/2018 9:50 PM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > *Right. I was just making the observation that when we don't see advanced > EM waves (coming from the future?), it's generally not seen as a big deal > and they're ignored. But when decoherence or the MWI implies the creation > of full-blown worlds (that we can't observe), there seems to be a large > body of opinion that accepts this bizarre result without serious criticism > that there's no mechanism or process for creating full-blown worlds. No. I > don't believe in such worlds. I tend to think a large segment of > professional physicists have gone mad. AG* > > > Except you've got it backwards. There is a mechanism and process for > creating them FAPP, evolution by the Schroedinger equation, which is the > same process used in predicting results. But there is no physical > mechanism for making them disappear....there's a mathematical process, i.e. > taking the partial trace which is the same as applying a projection > operator (with a little better justification). >
There's a distinction between subspaces that are disjoint and inaccessible to each other, and their non existence. Apparently you want to make the case that their mutual inaccessibility is equivalent to their non existence. This is reminiscent of the attempt to paper over the conflict of non locality with SR by asserting that only INFLUENCE is instantaneous, but not the transfer of INFORMATION. AG > > A large segment of professional physicists never heard of you. > > Brent > -- 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.
