On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 1:35:07 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> 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]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:00 AM Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]>
>>> 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
>
Really? That's why physicists and others are today (as it's reported in
science news stories) adopting
Many Worlds
as their perspective of reality?
@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/4347eab7-3fcd-4681-b359-af19016e3106%40googlegroups.com.
