On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 2:55:26 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/6/2019 2:37 AM, smitra wrote: > > On 04-10-2019 09:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:03 PM smitra <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> > >>> The descendant worlds get the same energy if they have well defined > >>> energy in which case computing the weighted average to get to the > >>> expectation value is unnecessary. In general the expectation value > >>> will > >>> need to be computed by this weighted average. To see that this is > >>> not > >>> crazy, suppose that QM is not the ultimate answer that 't Hooft is > >>> correct. But it then turns out that 't Hooft's deterministic models > >>> lead > >>> to a multiverse via the back door due to Poincare recurrence. And > >>> because with finite information in our brains, we cannot locate > >>> ourselves in a particular time period. Then when we do an > >>> experiment, a > >>> splitting can occur in the sense that we now get more precisely > >>> located > >>> across in the different sectors separated by astronomical large > >>> amounts > >>> of time. So, no problem here with the sum of the energy of > >>> (effective) > >>> branches increasing. > >> > >> Where is all this in the Schrodinger equation? > > > > We should start with listing all possibilities: > > > > 1) Schrodinger equation is exactly correct, in which case we have to > > accept the MWI. > > > > 2) Schrodinger equation is only an approximation. > > > > Under option 2) we can have single world theories where a real > > collapse happens that violates the Schrodinger equation. But it's also > > possible that the violation of the Schrodinger equation leading to a > > collapse doesn't actually get rid of the Many Worlds part of the MWI. > > The way the collapse happens will be different for the copies of an > > observer that will exist in a large enough universe (in a spatial or > > temporal sense). > > Just as the SE predicts there is no collapse of the WF it also predicts > there are no orthogonal worlds. The appearance of collapse comes from > the approximate orthogonality of projections onto the preferred bases. > So suppose we just say that when this approximate orthogonality comes > close enough to exact, we discard the other subspaces orthogonal to what > we've observed. Those other subspaces effectively don't exist. The > level of "close enough to exact" may have a theoretical basis in the > holographic principle and the finite information content available to > the accessible universe. > > Brent > > How does the *Schrödinger equation* predict "no collapse"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation @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/30ed7f5c-35e8-4162-b818-05a206aa3708%40googlegroups.com.
