> On 17 Jun 2018, at 00:21, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 4:02:19 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > On 6/16/2018 12:34 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 2:25:20 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> On 6/16/2018 2:02 AM, [email protected] <> wrote: >>> One hour ago I had coffee. You are now in universe U, where I had >>> coffee. Hadn't I had coffee this morning, you would now be in universe >>> U', where I didn't have coffee. I guess you could say that I created >>> universe U, but I don't think I will be worshiped has a god any time >>> soon. >>> >>> Applying the MWI to this situation, it would look something like this; you >>> go into a restaurant and have coffee. As a result, immediately, another >>> universe is created which has a copy of you, inclusive of your memories, >>> where you DON'T to go into the restaurant. Can't the see the foolishness of >>> what the MWI assumes? Namely, everything that's possible to happen, MUST >>> happen. AG >> >> Yes, that's a common conclusion and presumably why this is called the >> "everything-list". It isn't actually an implication of QM though. QM >> forbids lots of things, https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0702121v1 >> <https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0702121v1>. And MWI is just an >> interpretation. We don't have a quantum theory of spacetime and when we do >> it may rule out the MWI. So one shouldn't become too invested in it or it's >> contrary. >> >> Brent >> >> Yes, MWI is just an interpretation that is meant to make QM palatable to our >> macroscopic or classical-ish ideas on reality. There is no creation of >> separate worlds really. The superposition of states exists prior to and >> after an observation or decoherent event. It is just that with this "EVENT" >> an observer or decoherent set of information is carried along one >> superposition in the Hilbert space, while of course there are other such >> superpositions as well. Somehow, and Dieter Zeh had this idea of "many minds >> interpreation," we are conscious of one path. > > Because each of "we" is numerous. > > But it seems you have not heeded my warning about taking MWI too seriously. > You write as though it were well established fact. > > Brent > > I am arguing with in the MWI paradigm. As an interpretation it along with > other interpretations are more metaphysics.
I disagree with this. MWI is not an interpretation. It is a new formulation of QM. It is QM without the collapse postulate. It is just the SWE. Copenhagen is given by the wave + a physical collapse (before EPR), and a mysterious collapse (after EPR). Then, interpreting QM can be put in Metaphysics, but this does not mean that an interpretation is not testable, indirectly or directly. Metaphysics and theology can be done with the scientific attitude. We usually don’t due to a bad 1500 years habit, due to historical contingencies. My work, in particular, show that mechanist “philosophy" is testable, and indeed tested positively by the quantum weirdness which becomes quasi obvious with mechanism, intuitively, and a bit less obvious mathematically. Bruno > > LC > > -- > 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.
