On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 8:32:48 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 Sep 2019, at 05:32, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > 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. > > So, yes, the MWI is used all the time. The collapse is used for personal > consumption only, and is, in Everett-QM or in Mechanist philosophy of mind, > a first person experience. > > Bruno >
MWI says a decoherent event or measurement induces an observer to be "frame dragged" along various eigen-branches, where only one is experienced at each case. This is not QM per se, but rather an auxiliary physical axiom. LC -- 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/8e418ffe-5e5f-4958-9aa1-bf3161a8b645%40googlegroups.com.
