On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 3:18:48 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 10 Nov 2019, at 22:24, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 11:22 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On 7 Nov 2019, at 22:58, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 8:53 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> [email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: >> >>> 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? >> > > I did not say that they disappeared: merely that they do not play any role > in explaining our experience. > > > Then you agree with the, or some, form of the Many-Histories/World theory. > > > > If you can point to any such role, then fine. But I doubt that you can do > this. > > > That is the whole point of realism. To believe in things despite we can > not access to them. The belief that reality is bigger than the reality we > can personally observe. > > > > > >> There is no preferred basis, only personal basis to be able to interact >> locally in between us. >> > > Again you appear to ignore the primary role of science is in explaining > our experience. In our experience, there most certainly is a preferred > basis -- the world around us has not dissolved into the "mush" that > Schroedinger feared so much. If there is only a "personal basis", explain > to me why your personal basis does not include superpositions of live and > dead cats. > > > > For exactly the same reason that when I am duplicated in Washington and > Moscow, I don’t feel personally to be in both cities at once. > > The linearity of the evolution of the wave + the linearity of the tensor > product entails that if a robot observe a cat in the state a + d, and this > with a ad-measuring device, he ends up into a robot observing the evolution > of a cat which is alive, and a robot observing the evolution of a cat which > is dead. > > Once we have a body, evolution has chosen the “preferred base”, but it > does not play a fundamental role in the fundamental equation. We need some > base to have a perspective, like in Mechanist philosophy of mind we need > some universal machinery to be able to talk on all of them. > > Bruno > > > > If reality is pure "information" (as a lot of physicists today seem to believe, and that belief is required for Many Worlds), than copying (branching) is free.
But if all is matter, then there cannot be Many Worlds - or Many "You"s. @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/e8e2b325-14e7-48c3-a60a-8d2bd5e53cec%40googlegroups.com.
