On 9/17/2019 6:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Sep 2019, at 05:32, Philip Thrift <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 6:25:43 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell
wrote:
as far as I can see [MWI is] just an auxiliary set of physical
axioms one can work with in various ways. I have no idea whether
there really are 10^{200} versions of me splashed across the type
III multiverse.
LC
Are there any programs using "MWI axioms" in any computational QM
programming* to do materials science, chemistry, cosmology, etc. that
give them an edge over other methods in terms of making better
predictions?
If not, MMI is a waste of time, and *pseudoscience*.
There is no MWI axioms. MWI is just usual quantum mechanics where the
collapse postulate has been thrown out. (And no need to take the word
“worlds” too much seriously: it is more relative states or histories.
With mechanism, they are all already emulated just in virtue of 2+2=4
& Co.
When MWI throws out the collapse postulate it loses the connection with
results and records. It struggles to recover that and resorts to
equally questionable methods, such as averaging over the environment, to
connect with experiment.
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4a684794-4c07-83f5-9d84-878ccfb24fb0%40verizon.net.
