On 4/23/2022 1:42 AM, smitra wrote:
On 22-04-2022 00:54, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 11:58 PM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
On 21-04-2022 14:13, Bruce Kellett wrote:
As has been pointed out by others, superpositions are ubiquitous.
It
is only superpositions of the basis vectors of pointer states that
are
relevant. Pointer states are those that are robust under
environmental
decoherence. Once you trace over the unobserved environmental
degrees
of freedom, the superposition is gone, and the worlds no longer
interfere -- there is no macro-superposition.
While that's how we do computations in practice, superpositions of
observers having made different observations will continue to exist.
That one can trace out the unobserved environmental degrees of
freedom
does not cause the superposition to vanish.
So what? That is what FAPP is for: there is no practical purpose in
continuing to insist that the superposition exists.
Physics is not engineering. Models where the superposition vanishes
for real and one where it continues to exist are not equivalent.
But since they are empirically identical you have no way of knowing
which is "for real" only a metaphysical dogma.
Brent
So what does she branch due to? Of course Alice is subject to
decoherence as much as anyone else.
The information content describing what she is aware of can be
factored
out of the superposition.
In which case it is entirely useless. Physics does not exist to
satisfy your metaphysical urges.....
The whole point of doing physics is to understand how the universe works.
The many minds interpretation of MWI has been abandoned for very good
reasons. It actually makes no sense, and cannot be derived from the
Schrodinger equation or any other dynamical theory.
The framework I suggest is a direct consequence of the dynamics as
implied by the Schrodinger when defining observes as algorithms.
It was introduced
by Albert and Loewer in an attempt to make sense of probabilities in
MWI. It failed in that attempt, and we now know that MWI is
inconsistent with any sensible interpretation of probability; strict
MWI is inconsistent with the Born rule.
Yes, we do need to assume the Born rule. But MWI is not inconsistent
with the Born rule. Some people have argued that it is, but their
arguments are really about disagreements with the derivations of the
Born rule.
Saibal
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQuzB4F3iqOzadcQCGTOPq9Dkbb1FkesyVKddGueTFBkQ%40mail.gmail.com
[1].
Links:
------
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQuzB4F3iqOzadcQCGTOPq9Dkbb1FkesyVKddGueTFBkQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/74d0f0db-212c-ffeb-7b0b-3412cac18f0c%40gmail.com.
