On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 6:23:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 24 Sep 2019, at 10:22, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 3:05:39 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 1:36:42 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 8:44:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9/23/2019 6:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:44:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 9/23/2019 11:59 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>>> >>>>> *But other quantum experts use decoherence to explain quantum >>>>> phenomena without invoking multiple universes.* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Without invoking" doesn't mean "denying". >>>>> >>>> >>>> It does if you believe in applying Occam's Razor. AG >>>> >>>> >>>> True. But I'm still waiting for pt to quote this expert saying he >>>> explains quantum phenomena without MW. He keeps implying it's Zurek, but >>>> I >>>> just read Zurek's paper on quantum Darwinism again and ISTM Zurek is >>>> assuming MWI throughout. QD is just his solution to the basis problem. >>>> >>>> Brent >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> Zurek is not on a book tour, nor does he tweet, but after the rollout of >>> Carroll's book, one can only conclude: >>> >>> * Many Worlds is religion, not science.* >>> >>> @philipthrift >>> >> >> Right. You'll notice how my comment that the MWI is tantamount to >> "hubris on steroids" was never responded to. Hopefully, he'll be denied >> tenure, and his book and personage can go into the dustbin of history, >> where it belongs. AG >> > > > > I can't believe (well, I guess I can believe) the number of physicist who > think MWI is a valuable contribution to science. If you tell them > otherwise they they you that you don't understand physics. Many Worlds is > "in the math" (as Sean Carroll claims) so it must be true. > > They engage in magical thinking, but think they are doing science. Amazing. > > > The many-histories is a logical consequence of the theory. To assume a > theory without accepting its consequence is just wrong, or irrational. > > Bruno > > > > Which specific theory formulation are you talking about?
There's *quantum measure theory*: Axioms in section 2: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.0589.pdf But I don't see where Many Worlds as Carroll presents them are necessarily implied by these axioms. @philipthrift -- 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/d3cd0dab-58b7-4c1e-893f-f9c7821f9735%40googlegroups.com.
