On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 3:01 AM smitra <[email protected]> wrote: > On 28-01-2021 01:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:44 AM smitra <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> FAPP, therefore not well defined at all. Sticking to FAPP you could > >> never have discovered Special Relativity, General Relativity, found > >> the > >> correct way to resolve Maxwell's Demon paradox, etc. etc. > > > > FAPP is well-defined for all practical purposes. That is all that you > > require for special and general relativity, statistical mechanics, and > > the rest of physics. You cannot point me to any physical result that > > is not FAPP -- we have only limited measurement precision, after all. > > And that is good enough for real-world physics. > > > Lorentz transforms as interpreted by Lorentz himself, i.e. that there is > one good frame defined by the ether that defines "the real time" was > FAPP correct in 1905: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=67&v=Et8-gg6XNDY > > You can also replace general relativity by an ugly post-Newtonian > expansion of it and promote that to the FAPP correct theory. >
Those examples do not show that the worlds resulting from decoherence are not well-defined. 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/CAFxXSLQi8j1u%2BnM8ko2iah5v7pzx3emmFt60VAdTQ8G_BRnCzQ%40mail.gmail.com.
