> On 16 Oct 2018, at 00:18, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: smitra <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >> It may look like one can re-interpret QM as being consistent with >> Einstein realism, but Bell disproved this (if you assume locality). Note >> also what Bruce said about "simultaneously". >> >> My own idea is that we need to think about how to interpret time >> evolution, instead of making all this fuss about superpositions. Without >> collapse, the time evolution of a system can be interpreted as a simple >> change of basis. You still have access to the initial state, at least in >> theory. But if the system collapses (in the MWI this is then an >> effective collapse due to you getting entangled with the system), you >> cannot access the initial state anymore (in practice, you might not have >> been able to do that anyway). > > I think this is the important observation for MWI vs collapse. In MWI, > entanglement of the observer with the system is an effective collapse -- one > no longer has access to either the initial state or to the other branches of > the superposition.
I agree with this, although Mitra’s use of “effective” can be misleading. There is collapse at all, but for the point of view of the observers, it is an irreversible collapse in all practical interactions (involving a large number of parameters). > This is the heart of Bruno's FPI, Right! > and it means that MWI is only of philosophical interest -- it cannot have any > relevance as an explanation of experience. Except that, unlike Saibal, I do not assume a physical universe, and explain its appearance by that “effective collapse”, due to the fact that computations diverge all the time in arithmetic (due to different data, or oracles, …) and consciousness differentiate accordingly. I am not the one saying that arithmetic (theories of models) emulates all computations. That has been discovered somehow by Gödel (who missed the Church’s thesis, and so did not see the impact) but rediscovered by Turing, and related by Turing, and many others, to his thesis (and thus too Church’s one). That theory, which is just mechanism (which presupposed arithmetic or Turing equivalent, but nothing more) explains the origin of the physical reality, which becomes indeed part of the “observable” phenomenology of the universal Turing machine. It might not be used in any particle physics, but that was never its intent, which is more about the complete global picture and explanation based on simple principle that everyone agree with, like x + 0 = x, etc. It says something theological, if only because it make first person death non sensical, and show that most question about the relation between mind and matter remains extremely complex, yet formulable into equations. Bruno > > Bruce > > > -- > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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.
