On 6/21/2018 7:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 1:02 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:On 6/20/2018 9:50 PM, Jason Resch wrote:On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 5:47 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> 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.Wouldn't this imply that Everett failed in his relative state formulation and that the collapse postulate is still necessary to explain observations?
Dunno. Everett assumes that FAPP is good enough, but I don't know how that squares with a theory of mind.
Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
