On 6/25/2018 5:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jun 2018, at 08:02, Brent Meeker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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.
But the projection, with the MWI, is not due to a physical collapse,
but just of a self-localisation procedure.
But I don't see "self-localisation" as one of the unitary operators in
the Schroedinger equation.
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.
