> On 14 Oct 2019, at 20:20, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Part of the dislike of the MWI is that its proponents assume a purity that is > not an evident virtue of the intepretation. For example, interpreting the > squared amplitudes as probabilities seems to be assumed, along with the > existence of the preferred basis in which the amplitudes are defined. > Together these are almost the same as CI. If you ask "probabilities of > what?" in MWI the answer can't be probability of existing because MWI has > committed to all solutions, however improbable, existing. So it becomes > probability of finding yourself in a particular world...which depends on a > theory of consciousness and seems to regress to von Neumann and Wigner.
Ot to Mechanism, as Everett already suggested. > > Zurek's envariance attempts to answer these questions and provide a > justification for preferred bases and what probability refers to. But notice > that to the extent he succeeds he is justifying taking a simple probabilistic > view and saying one of those preferred states happens and the others don’t. The others happen too, but are not suited for mechanism to develop. There is no preferred base in the MWI, but only those on which consciousness can stabilise and allow first person plural reality to make sense can be seen by machine. With Everett, quantum mechanics becomes exactly the physics expected from mechanism: a statistics on relative indexical first person (plural) experience. Bruno PS I agree that hidden variable reintroduces 3p indeterminacy, non locality, or threaten physical realism (which is impose by mechanism, btw). Also, making the SWE non linear demolish the QM prediction, without making the “parallel histories” disappearing. According to Steve Weinberg, it allows interaction in between the “parallel” branches of the superposition, and eventually contradict both thermodynamic and special relativity. > > Brent > > On 10/14/2019 4:36 AM, John Clark wrote: >> Philip Thrift <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >Have you suddenly become a fan of hidden variables models? In that case, I >> >am totally on your side. >> >> If you're a fan of hidden variables then, to be consistent with experimental >> results, you must also be a fan of non-locality, or non-reality, or >> superdeterminism. >> >> > QM (or the Schrodinger Equation, SE) is incomplete because it does not >> > solve the measurement problem, >> >> Many Worlds solves the measurement problem because, unlike every other >> interpretation, it precisely defines what a measurement is, it's just a >> change, any sort of change. So what you really have is not a measurement >> problem but a many worlds problem, and it's only a problem for emotional >> reasons not scientific reasons, some people are just repelled by the idea >> that there is more than one version of themselves around; but the universe >> is not required to be in harmony with individual human desires. >> >> > so there must be a new nonlinear SE, >> >> And all those proposed wheels within wheels added to the Schrodinger >> Equation and the massive load of additional mathematical complexity that >> entails does not improve the modified equation's ability to predict >> experimental results one iota, it gets rid of many worlds and does >> absolutely nothing else. It reminds me of a fundamentalist preacher's theory >> that the world was made in 4004 BC and God put dinosaur bones in the ground >> at that time that look much older but are not, and God can do that because >> God can do anything. Making quantum calculations is difficult enough as it >> is, we should be looking for ways to make it easier not harder. >> >> And by the way, all those modifications of the Schrodinger Equation involve >> sticking in random factors, Many Worlds has no need of such random factors, >> it's contend with the simpler deterministic Schrodinger Equation just as it >> is now. >> >> John K Clark >> >> -- >> 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/CAJPayv3wd_eTGe%3DM7q30f-UdggB%2Bt5gDZPZdzpLYd9-rQCc0sw%40mail.gmail.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3wd_eTGe%3DM7q30f-UdggB%2Bt5gDZPZdzpLYd9-rQCc0sw%40mail.gmail.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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f3397c40-c878-ffc9-ec69-3778117e40da%40verizon.net > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f3397c40-c878-ffc9-ec69-3778117e40da%40verizon.net?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/99F77D8B-2577-4F0D-93C2-84AB4AE73FB6%40ulb.ac.be.
