On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 5:20 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/9/2020 2:37 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 7:48 PM smitra <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 08-02-2020 07:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> > 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? >> >> 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. > And pigs might fly....... 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/CAFxXSLQecZ0mfcetmQOB4GU6jKf-SsMYiT_ODahOA9J%2BeeVR8g%40mail.gmail.com.
