On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 4:21 PM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSg%3D1SW4xkNeMkeyuhZo22P6FhoL%3D7u9RFGai%3DqbyH5pQ%40mail.gmail.com.
