On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 12:32 AM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
>> that is the one assumption you have to make in the MWI, you have to >> assume that the Schrodinger wave equation means what it says, and in words >> it says "*The rate of change of a wave function is proportional to the >> energy of the quantum system and the high energy parts of the wave function >> evolve rapidly while the low energy parts evolve slowly*". It would be >> expected that more things happen in the rapidly evolving parts then the >> slowly >> evolving parts. > > > > *> Whether the Geiger counter detects five alpha particles in a second or > four doesn't depend on some atoms evolving slowly or quickly.* > Yes, but that is in no way inconsistent with what I said in the above, in fact that's the reason that all versions of "you" agree on what the half life of a radioactive element is, although they may disagree on whether a particular atom has decayed or not. *> MWI finesses this by saying that you observe all possible outcomes...but >>> in other worlds. * >> >> >> >> That depends on the meaning of the pronoun "you". In the fast >> evolving part of the wave function more things are happening but there are >> also more versions of "you" to see them, and some parts contain no energy >> at all and thus nothing happens there at all. It is physically impossible >> for some things to happen so no version of "you" sees it. > > > > *That's a strange thing to say.* > Yes it's a very strange thing to say no doubt about it, but there is absolutely positively no way any quantum interpretation that is compatible with observation will EVER be able to make the quantum world not seem strange. When you get down into the quantum realm things just seem weird, but they never become logically paradoxical. The reason things seem so strange to us is that there would've been no Evolutionarily advantage to our hominid ancestors on the African savanna if our minds were constructed in such a way that such things seemed intuitively obvious, so instead evolution made our brains good at other things, like avoiding predators and detecting prey. > > In the last few seconds thousands of cosmic rays shot thru you and > you didn't see or detect them in any way. > Yes. > > *Yet according Everett they split the world into as many copies because > they left traces that could be observed where they passed thru solid > objects. * > Yes. Is there supposed to be a problem with that? >> And if the Born rule had been proven to be inconsistent with Hilbert >> space physicist would not have gotten rid of the Born rule, instead they >> would've gotten rid of Hilbert space, because the Born rule would have >> continued to work regardless of what Hilbert space's opinion of it is. > > > > *Without Hilbert space they'd have no state vector to apply the Born > rule.* > And that would be a pity, but physicists would still have the ability to multiply numbers and find their square roots, they were doing such numerical manipulation long before anybody knew anything about Hilbert space , so they could still use the Born rule. Regardless of what a mathematician might say physicists will never abandon the Born rule as long as it retains its ability to make successful predictions. John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> q92 -- 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/CAJPayv2SJn1Dfh4EFz8SQSVYjuRoOixAdBtCSJHVFvd%3DeGdw%2BA%40mail.gmail.com.
