On 11/7/2019 12:21 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:27:32 PM UTC-6, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 11:15, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]
<javascript:>> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:00 AM Stathis Papaioannou
<[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote:
The universe as a whole is determined in every detail, and
random choice of the observer in measuring a particle is
not really a random choice.
If you believe that, you believe in magic sauce.
It is a consequence of Many Worlds that there is no true
randomness, but only apparent randomness. If Many Worlds is wrong,
then this may also be wrong. Randomness in choice of measurement
is required for the apparent nonlocal effect when considering
entangled particles.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
That's what *Many Worlds* implies.
The mystery is: Why do (according to the science press in the wake of
Sean Carroll's book) so many people think Many Worlds is a good
scientific idea (or the best idea, according to the author).
Because it treats measurement as just another physical interaction of
quantum systems obeying the same evolution equations as other interactions.
Brent
--
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/1624bb97-3619-269a-82c9-69044b53c4fa%40verizon.net.
