On Sunday, November 17, 2019 at 6:01:58 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 3:34 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
> >> Apply Einstein's Razor too, "make things as simple as possible but not
>>> simpler."
>>>
>>
>> *But the MWI is the most UN-parsimonious interpretation possible!*
>>
>
> I don't see why having 2 completely different sets of physical laws, one
> for when something is being observed and one for when something is not
> being observed, is more unparsimonious that having just one set of laws,
> particularly when it is not at all clear exactly what "observed" means.
>
>
>> *> Can't you see that?*
>>
>
> Nope.
>
> John K Clark
>
>
>
>>
We don't know what the physical constituents of quantum mechanics are.
(We don't know what the physical constituents of gravity are either.)
But in the case of QM, there are a number of hypothetical models, like with
*Adrian Kent*'s https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.6565 "real path quantum
theory" *RPQT*
that only have *one world,* not many worlds.
In that sense MWI is unparsimonious.
(Sean Carroll has never talked about RPQT that I am aware of.)
@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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4794e69e-9ba0-4118-93aa-86269fad744d%40googlegroups.com.
