> On 25 Feb 2020, at 23:26, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 2/25/2020 8:53 AM, smitra wrote: >> On 22-02-2020 01:20, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: >>> On 2/21/2020 4:00 PM, smitra wrote: >>>> On 16-02-2020 05:48, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: >>>>> On 2/15/2020 9:30 AM, smitra wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The main issue is unitary time evolution. This is a rather >>>>>> unambiguous thing that one can check in experiments. A breakdown of >>>>>> unitary time evolution has never been observed. >>>>>> >>>>>> As Brent has pointed out, unitary evolution breaks down every time >>>>>> we >>>>>> observe a particular result for a measurement (to say nothing of >>>>>> black >>>>>> holes). Your focus on unitary evolution is misplaced -- it is not >>>>>> universally observed. >>>>> >>>>> This has no bearing on the unitary time evolution of an isolated >>>>> system. We can infer from measurements that an isolated system does >>>>> evolve in a unitary way. Non-unitary time evolution would violate the >>>>> known laws of physics. >>> >>> Only the "known" law that all time evolution is unitary. In the >>> Transactional interpretation there are random violations of unitary >>> evolution, as there are GRW and other real collapse versions of QM. >>> You, like most MWI proponents, assume your purist version is a "law of >>> physics" when the whole question is "What are the laws physics." >>> >>> Brent >> >> When comparing different theories one has to weigh up the experimental >> evidence to see what theory fits the evidence the best. Normally we would >> consider theories that introduce new, as of yet unobserved physics when it's >> not clear that the theory solves a real problem, to be extremely >> speculative. This is the case for collapse theories, they introduce new >> physics that has never been observed, > > They would say nothing else has been observed. Certainly multiple worlds > have not been observed.
Nor as one world be observed. We observe a world, not the fact that it is unique. The number of worlds (0, 1, 2, …) is a problem in metaphysics, not in physics. > The observation is always that there is a single result. Yes. That’s why the W-guy needs some theory and confirmation to accept the existence of the M-guy, and without the quantum statistical interference, or without Mechanism in Cognitive Science, we would not discuss about many-worlds or many-histories, or many-computations, etc. To take the observation of some reality as a proof that such reality exist ontologically, is equivalent with Aristotle's Materialism. The point of Plato was precisely that what we observe might be only one aspect of a deeper and simpler reality. Bruno > > Brent > >> and it's then a purported solution for an issue that's entirely >> philosophical, with no bearing on ordinary physics. >> >> It's a bit like opposing Einstein's theory of relativity because of a >> dislike of having to abandon absolute time, and then having to introduce the >> ether which comes with a lot of potentially experimentally observable >> baggage that you then need to explain away. >> >> Saibal >> > > > -- > 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/873a131f-0e62-50f3-d308-a8aa2b006325%40verizon.net. -- 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/488214B2-DD20-4AD5-9F6F-3CA81F56CD69%40ulb.ac.be.
