On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 2:40:53 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Le jeu. 10 oct. 2019 à 09:34, Philip Thrift <[email protected] > <javascript:>> a écrit : > >> >> >> On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 3:59:50 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 4:55 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> *> Other interpretations (but not MWI, as far as I can see) are used in >>>> writing programs for computational QM.* >>> >>> >>> Like what? >>> >>> John K Clark >>> >>> >>> >> Multiple Histories. >> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_histories ? > > So there are multiple "worlds", if multiple past histories are real.... so > as you dislike MWI, what's different here for you to accept multiple past ? > (because if each event has multiple *real* past then likewise it has > multiple *real* future). > > Quentin > > -- > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy > Batty/Rutger Hauer) >
That's one way to look at it. In Fay Dowker's debate with a Many Worlder: via https://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/f.dowker In this public debate <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeuI_Oja-P4> I argue that the path integral (or sum over histories) approach to quantum mechanics provides a One World interpretation Bottom line: multiple histories are cheaper than many worlds. @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/a7ea4da6-e578-4432-b580-d021cde8ae03%40googlegroups.com.
