On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 11:08 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 12/20/2018 8:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 10:30 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On 12/20/2018 4:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 1:27 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 12/20/2018 1:49 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 8:05 PM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 6:16 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> *> The Shrodinger equation is deterministic.* >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> >>>> > *Quantum Randomness, like a moving present, is a subjective >>>>> phenomenon.* >>>> >>>> >>>> The Schrodinger equation describes the quantum wave function using >>>> complex numbers, and that is not observable so it's subjective in the same >>>> way that lines of latitude and longitude are. However the square of the >>>> absolute value of the wave function is observable because that produces a >>>> probability that we can measure in the physical world that is objective, >>>> provided anything deserves that word; but it also yields something that is >>>> not deterministic. >>>> >>>> >>> It is still deterministic. If you say otherwise you are introducing >>> "collapse", and saying the other unobserved outcomes have stopped existing >>> and are no long part of the system. Schrodinger's equation does not say >>> this is what happened, it just says that you have ended up with a system >>> with many sets of observers, each of which observed different outcomes. >>> >>> >>> You seem to think Schroedinger's equation was handed down to him on >>> stone tablets from God. >>> >> >> QM is the most accurate and successful theory in science. I will believe >> it until something better comes along. >> >> >> It was the most accurate and successful theory in science well before >> Everett came along. >> > > > It wasn't a mathematical theory until Everett came along and deleted the > unmathematical and loosely defined part that was incompatible with half a > dozen scientific principles. > > > The only "scientific principle" CI was incompatible with was a revulsion > for randomness. As Roland Omnes' says it's a probabilistic theory, so it > predicts probabilities. > Also: it would be the only physical theory which held different principles at different scales / magical observers (or consciousness, or something else), non-realism, violation of speed of light, time irreversibility, inability to consider multiple observers, inability to describe universe prior to observers, non-linearity, discontinuous, etc. 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]. 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.
