On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 8:55 AM John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 2:30 PM 'Brent Meeker' < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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.
