On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 10:24 AM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 4:14 PM 'Brent Meeker' via < > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> If you fire electrons at 2 slits and observe the slits then each >>> electron takes a real path through one and only one slit and no >>> interference pattern is produced. If you fire electrons at 2 slits and do >>> NOT observe the slits then a interference pattern is produced indicating >>> that each electron went through both slits. Thus real path quantum theory >>> needs 2 sets of physical laws, one for when things are observed and one >>> when they are not. Many Worlds only needs one set of physical laws, and one >>> set is more parsimonious than two. >> >> >> * > That's what the evangelists for MWI say. * >> > > I think "evangelists" is unfair. Even the most ardent fan doesn't say we > know for certain the MWI is true, they just say it's the least crazy idea > that anybody has so far thought of that explains the crazy experimental > facts, and they readily admit it's possible the problem is just that nobody > has thought hard enough yet. And they certainly don't say anybody who > disagrees with the MWI will be eternally tortured as the loving Christian > God constantly threatens to do to those who don't believe in Him. > > >> *> But in fact some more stuff is needed to explain why we see the world >> as we do, i.e. how probability comes into it* >> > > If the Schrödinger equation really means what it says and everything that > can happen does happen > The Schroedinger equation says nothing of the sort.. Only things that are nomologically possible given your particular initial conditions can happen. And that rules out things like "there is a copy of me that turns left whenever I turn right....". > then probability would have to come into it when answering the question > "What will a being that remembers being Brent Meeke today see tomorrow?". > > *> Maybe this more stuff can be derived from Schroedinger's equation, but >> even to do so seems to require additional assumptions.* >> > > Additional assumptions are needed only if you insist on getting rid of > those other worlds, > Additional assumptions are needed if you want to make sense of questions like" "What will a being that remembers being John Clark today see tomorrow." > just as you can get a theory that very accurately predicts how the planets > move in the night sky even though the theory has the Earth at the center > and the sun and all the planets moving around it, you just have to assume > lots and lots of epicycles. But the Copernicus theory won because it was > more parsimonious in its assumptions. Hugh Everett's genius wasn't that he > added something new to Quantum Mechanics, his genius was in getting rid of > useless junk. > And he was something of an idiot because he did not see that you could not get probabilities out of a deterministic theory without adding something extra. 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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSO3mF_8PnJoL-vPW6wpHq6zYY1PKX%2BnWkJ2GDsg-DW4A%40mail.gmail.com.
