On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 4:05:15 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 5/26/2018 1:37 PM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 5:08:51 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 5/25/2018 9:50 PM, [email protected] 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. AG > > > Operationally, it is. > > Brent >
But not a helpful pov if one's objective is to determine what's out there. 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.
