> On 21 Jun 2018, at 22:19, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 6/21/2018 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 20 Jun 2018, at 00:47, Brent Meeker <[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. >> But why adding that last steps? Why to make the diagonal exact if not to cut >> the other worlds? > > Because if you don't, a further evolution may undo the measurement/perception.
I know it looks sad, but that is not an argument. In fact undoing some measurement/perception might be required for overall consistency, and is also a useful quantum gate. The squared amplitudes can be asymptotical, and get the number zero is not always possible, but all what counts is to be relatively small to have enough determinism to keep the partial control. Bruno > > 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 [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. -- 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.
