On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 5:17 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 6/19/2018 6:55 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:16 AM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On 6/18/2018 4:09 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >>> It will take a lot of work under his approach, but I am not aware of any >>> other system proposed by anyone, which even has a chance at this. >>> >> >> Penrose's gravity induced collapse has as good a chance as Bruno's, > > > At least Penrose has drawn a line in the sand, which can be experimentally > refuted. Though I don't see any motivation for any collapse base theory > since Everett provided an account of collapse without having to assume it. > (Again this is like adding appending motive demon theory, which is > entirely superfluous and adds whose sole motivation is to preserve the > notion of collapse as physically real rather than apparent) > > >> and a better chance of predicting some surprising but true physics. Some >> version of transactional QM also has a chance. > > > Transactional QM is another complication of the theory, proposing things > we have no evidence for to explain things which have already been explained > from a much simpler theory. > > > You only think it's simpler because you close your eyes to the last step > in going from a FAPP diagonal reduced density matrix to an actually > diagonal reduced density matrix. A step that is perfectly equivalent to > Bohr and Heisenberg's collapse postulate, except it tells you where to hide > the collapse. > Is the appearance of collapse not describable from the other postulates? Jason -- 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.
