> On 18 Sep 2019, at 21:15, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 3:01:23 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 6:33 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 1:08:16 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 1:02:39 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 4:51 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected] <>> wrote: > On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 3:54:46 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:22 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected] <>> wrote: > > > When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM and Relativity, > > people when overboard. Now any patently absurd result finds its > > justification among true believers. > > And in this context "patently absurd" means odd, not logically contradictory > not paradoxical not contrary to experimental results, just odd. But as far as > we know there is no law that says nature can't behave in ways that humans > find odd. > > Many "odd" results are now mainstream, but MWI is bridge too far, way too far > IMO. Why don't you just accept that the wf is simply irrelevant after the > measurement occurs like in the horserace example?. Here, there's no collapse, > no many worlds, no need to explain where the energy comes from which defines > these worlds, and so forth? AG > > Except that horses and horse races do not interfere (except in Australia, > where several jockeys and trainers have recently been suspended for > unauthorised interference -- but that is a different matter!) > > Bruce > > I know. I was just being illustrative. But note that Carroll says much the > same thing when he says worlds are created when you make a left or right > turn, or flip a coin (or some equivalent analogy). AG > > But suppose you flip a coin and while it's in the air, you write its wf. > Since the prevailing belief is that all objects are quantum objects, why > can't one suppose that the two terms in the superposition, head and tail, > manifest quantum interference? AG > > Why can't one observe a superposition of a live cat and a dead cat? The > problem is decoherence, and coin tosses are totally decohered -- no quantum > superpositions left. So one is reduced to standard classical ignorance > probability . > > Bruce > > Yes, you're getting to the core of the issue, and there's more here then > (than?) meets the eye, at least mine. It seems that quantum superpositions > depend on isolation and are destroyed by entanglements,
How could ever something destroyed an entanglement? On the contrary, the entailment with an observer will just put the observer in a superposition state himself, and then assuming mechanism, you get the “illusion” of a collapse, without any need of collapse. Everett “many-worlds” is just the rather natural (for monist at least) idea that a physicist obeys to the laws of physics. Bruno > but exactly why that's the case remains obscure. And these entanglements also > connect the micro to the macro. AG > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c7e0194c-57fd-4eeb-8d17-d37f33936918%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c7e0194c-57fd-4eeb-8d17-d37f33936918%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/31EE604E-3944-4907-B3E6-7F335DB637E2%40ulb.ac.be.
