On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 2:20:47 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 2:09:25 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: <[email protected]> >> >> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 1:37:53 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected] >>> Everett prove the contrary, and he convinced me when I read it. I found >>> “his proof” used in many books on quantum computing, although with >>> different motivation. Thee result of an experiment, obviously depend of >>> what you measure, but when you embed the observer in the wave, you get that >>> what they find is independent of the choice of the base used to describe >>> the “observer” and the “observed”. If not, the MW would already be refuted. >>> >>> >>> In that case, MW is refuted. Clearly, what the observer finds is >>> dependent on the basis in which he is described. Or else experiments would >>> not have definite results when described in the laboratory from the 1p >>> perspective. Even if you take the 'bird' view of the whole multiverse -- >>> which is, I agree, independent of the basis in which it is described -- the >>> view of any observer embedded in the multiverse is totally basis-dependent. >>> That is, after all, what we mean by 'worlds' -- the view from within, or >>> the 1p view. But that view depends on how you describe it: the way in which >>> you partition the multiverse itself. Only certain very special bases are >>> robust against environmental decoherence -- how else do you resolve the >>> Schrödinger cat issue? >>> >>> Bruce >>> >> >> *So you find the resolution in the fact that according to decoherence >> theory, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead for only short time? AG* >> >> >> Decoherence has resolved the basis question long before the cyanide has >> hit the cat. >> >> Bruce >> > > *I don't think you've answered the question. Isn't the cat in a > superposition of alive and dead before the cyanide hits? Did Schroedinger > write an incorrect wf? If so, what is the correct one IYO? AG * >
*I surmise your position is that decoherence happens so quickly, that the superposition Schroedinger wrote was really a mixed state. If so, I don't see this as a solution to the paradox, unless you want to allow the existence of a simultaneously alive and dead cat for a very, very short time. 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.
