On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 10:24 AM John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 4:14 PM 'Brent Meeker' via < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSO3mF_8PnJoL-vPW6wpHq6zYY1PKX%2BnWkJ2GDsg-DW4A%40mail.gmail.com.
