On 2/9/2020 2:37 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 7:48 PM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl <mailto:smi...@zonnet.nl>> wrote:On 08-02-2020 07:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 4:21 PM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl <mailto: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? A single world theory must violate unitary time evolution, it has to assume a violation of the Schrodinger equation. But there is no experimental evidence for violations of the Schrodinger equation. While one can make such assumptions and develop a formalism based on this, the issue is then that in the absence of experimental proof that the Schrodinger equation is going to be violated, one should not claim that such a model is superior than another model that doesn't imply any new physics.So what. If Everettian QM doesn't work, as it has been shown to fail in that is does not recover normal scientific practice, then one must look to alternative theories. I have not advocated any particular theory, but a break down of unitary evolution is not such a big deal -- it is what we observe every day, after all. This is the heart of the quantum measurement problem.The MWI may have some philosophical weaknesses like the derivation of the Born rule but the pragmatic variant of it where you just assume the Born rule is clearly superior to any other model where you're going to just assume that the known laws of physics are going to be violated to get to a model that to you looks more desirable from a philosophical point of view.The trouble is that even postulating the Born rule, ad hoc as in Copenhagen, does not get you out of the problems with Everett. As long as one follows Everett and assumes one branch for each component of the superposition, one is going to fail to explain normal scientific practice. If one follows Brent and Bruno and assumes that there are multiple branches for each experimental result, then one has lost touch with the Schrodinger equation anyway, Everett is out of the window, and there are still problems with the definition of probability.
I think Bruno's hope is to recover the Schroedinger equation as a kind of stat-mech limit of his universal dovetailer threads. This might comport with Zurek's idea of quantum Darwinism.
Brent -- 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/4e7bc702-cb0e-127b-ba80-648a93a9ac95%40verizon.net.
