On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 4:21 PM smitra <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08-02-2020 05:19, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > No, I am suggesting that Many-worlds is a failed theory, unable to > > account for everyday experience. A stochastic single-world theory is > > perfectly able to account for what we see. > > > > Bruce > > Stochastic single word theories make predictions that violate those of > quantum mechanics.
No they don't. When have violations of the quantum predictions been observed? If the MWI (in the general sense of there existing a > multiverse rather than any details of how to derive the Born rule) is > not correct, then that's hard to reconcile with known experimental > results. All experimental results to date are consistent with a single-world theory. There are several possibilities for such a theory, but to date, experiment does not distinguish between them. New physics that so far has never been observed needs to be > assumed just to get rid of the Many Worlds. Also, this new physics > should appear not at the as of yet unprobed high energies where the > known laws of physics could plausibly break down, instead it would have > to appear at the mesoscopic or macroscopic scale where the laws of > physics are essentially fixed. > Bohm's theory does not require as-yet-unobserved new physics. GRW do postulate a new physical interaction, but that is below the level of current experimental detectability. Besides, why should you assume that the Schrodinger equation is the ultimate physical law? 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/CAFxXSLSg%3D1SW4xkNeMkeyuhZo22P6FhoL%3D7u9RFGai%3DqbyH5pQ%40mail.gmail.com.
