On 6/20/2018 9:50 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 5:47 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 6/19/2018 8:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Most of these objections to CI are answered by decoherence
theory.
I have no clue how to interpret decoherence with a collapse
theory.
You use decoherence theory until you get to the reduced density
matrix that is diagonal FAPP (or for all conscious purposes) and
then you declare it is exactly diagonal and cut the other "worlds"
loose.
What's the point of that last step, when decoherence explains why we
don't see those other branches?
But decoherence didn't quite explain it. You have to take the trace
over the environment in order to justify making the reduced density
matrix exactly diagonal (instead of FAPP diagonal) and that step is not
unitary evolution per the SE, it's using a projection operator.
Brent
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]
<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.
For more options, visit 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.
