> On 7 Nov 2019, at 22:58, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 8:53 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > On 11/7/2019 1:40 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 6:35 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > 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. >> >> But you can do that (viz. accept that people, and measuring instruments, and >> everything else are basically quantum mechanical) without adopting the "many >> worlds" philosophy. > > ISTM that creates problem for defining a point where one of the probabilities > becomes actualized. MWI tries to avoid this by supposing that all > probabilities are "actualized" in the sense of becoming orthogonal subspaces. > There are some problems with this too, but I see the attraction. > > You can always find problems with any approach. What I particularly dislike > about MW advocates (like Sean Carroll) is that they are dishonest about the > number of assumptions they have to make to get the SWE to "fly". Particularly > over the preferred basis problem and Born rule. Zurek comes closer, and he > effectively dismisses the "other branches" as a convenient fiction. If these > other branches play no effective role in explaining our experience, then why > have them there?
How could some terms in a wave expansion disappear without assuming some non unitary collapse of some sort? There is no preferred basis, only personal basis to be able to interact locally in between us. Bruno > > Bruce > > -- > 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/CAFxXSLQ7z1jE6tVdfAjo71MO54sgWLOqPEfFWc7O8CO1hV5F4Q%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQ7z1jE6tVdfAjo71MO54sgWLOqPEfFWc7O8CO1hV5F4Q%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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/EAFA453A-088B-470E-B4DD-B4C0A143EC6E%40ulb.ac.be.
