On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 8:55 AM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 2:30 PM 'Brent Meeker' < > [email protected]> wrote: > > >>Anything that does not violate the laws of physics, particularly >>> quantum physics, can happen. >> >> >> * > That's not quite right. Events inconsistent with the laws of physics >> can't happen. But also things inconsistent with initial or boundary >> conditions (which are typically classical) can't happen. So it is not JUST >> the SWE.* >> > > Initial conditions rigidly determine the evolution of a system according > to the laws of classical physics, but the SWE is not classical and it's not > the only thing that isn't. As Richard Feynman said: > You fail to understand the role of initial conditions -- in quantum physics as well as in classical physics. > "*Nature isn't classical, dammit, and if you want to make a simulation of > nature, you'd better make it quantum mechanical*". > > >> EVERY quantum interpretation assumes the Born Rule. I don't claim the >>> MWI can solve every quantum problem but it can solve one, the mystery of >>> the observer, and it is at least the equal of the other interpretations in >>> explaining the other mysteries. In other words the Many Worlds >>> Interpretation is the least bad idea anybody has come up with over the last >>> century to explain the weird nature of the quantum world. >> >> >> * >The Born rule is a way of predicting probabilities. But how do these >> probabilities apply in MWI. Do they apply to "observations"...but there >> are no observations in MWI;* >> > > You can have observations in MWI if you want, it's just that observations > don't change physical law so one set of laws is enough. Sean Carroll and > others have shown that the square of the absolute value of the wave > function is the only way for a rational being to assign unitary probability > in a Many Worlds multiverse during the instant after a split has occurred, > and if probability isn't unitary it's not of much use: > Where did the "being" come from? And what is rationality? And why does the "being" have to be rational"? 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/CAFxXSLREqWD2vPxu%3DhSGz4dAeFP%3D6okAMeBg%3D_HWGoBi%3DCc28w%40mail.gmail.com.
