On 12/23/2021 3:00 AM, smitra wrote:
On 22-12-2021 23:25, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 10:12 PM smitra <[email protected]> wrote:
On 21-12-2021 22:48, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 12:53 AM smitra <[email protected]> wrote:
The problem is with
comparing with collapse hypothesis and then saying that there is
no
difference.
If there is no difference, where is the problem?
One needs to invoke a new physical mechanism to explain the
collapse.
Since this is then not motivated by experimental results showing
that
e.g. systems decohere faster than standard QM would predict, one is
then
invoking new physics purely because of a philosophical dislike of a
theory that doesn't need that new physics.
That is a purely philosophical objection!
At least the collapse hypothesis is subject to experimental test.
Whereas the many-worlds hypothesis is beyond any conceivable
experimental test. Decoherence is not unique to MWI -- it happens in
any quantum model.
The relevant prediction of the MWI is simply that systems evolve
according to unitary time evolution. No information gets created out
of thin air. If you have collapse, then the random element of the
collapse amounts to information added to the system.
So does your self-locating uncertainty becoming certain.
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/237d65c0-6eca-f4c7-7d3b-c4208eabcdae%40gmail.com.
