On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:28:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 4 Oct 2019, at 00:53, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > The question is about quantum many worlds. Not cosmology. > > > Cosmology assumes the quantum at a cosmological scale, and it is where a > collapse makes the less sense. Who would observe and be responsible for the > collapse of the universal wave? Belinfante estimates that the > Copenhagen-von Neuman formulation of QM requires an external god looking at > the universe, like materialism requires a god selecting a unique > computation, but that’s no more doing science. > > François Englert, who worked in quantum cosmology, was very annoyed by the > collapse problem, and was relieved that it makes sense to just abandon the > collapse idea. The collapse is usually not even defined in any > intelligible sense, and it introduces a duality incompatible with > Mechanism, but also with the scientific attitude, I would say. > > With mechanism, there is only one consciousness which differentiates into > many 1p histories, and they interfere statistically, notably by allowing a > 1p plural observable and sharable reality. > > Why to believe in any “world"? > > Bruno > > >
Applied sciences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_applied_science#Branches_of_applied_science do not need Many Worlds Interpretation (as far as I can see). If there is no reason to use MWI in applied science, there is no reason to consider MWI in science at all. @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/e2355243-0e17-4fb3-ae29-6de5d2e5f555%40googlegroups.com.
