On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 12:32 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/26/2022 7:01 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:35 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> You just presented an elaborate presentation involving N branching steps
>> and counted all 2^N branches as equal. That's branch counting and it's
>> known to not be compatible with QM. The MWI can be taken to be QM
>> without collapse and this is known to be a consistent theory
> It would seem that you are claiming that QM without collapse is not based
> on Everett's ideas. If you claim that such a theory exists and is
> consistent, then you really should present that theory, and point out that
> it has nothing to do with Everett, or with obtaining every outcome of a
> trial on different branches.
> My impression is that you do not have any worked-out theory -- you just
> throw arbitrary objections to my working through the consequences of
> Everett's approach to quantum mechanics. I have shown that many problems
> exist with Everettian QM. If you agree, and are prepared, with me, to throw
> out Everett, then we agree, and there is nothing more to be argued about
> (at least, until you present some different complete theory).
> I think Everett's idea was just to get rid of wave-function collapse and
> instead assert that the apparently incompatible results of an experiment
> were just different entanglements of one's brain/instrument with different
> superposed components of the state of the system measured.  This is all
> consistent with the Copenhagen interpretation, except in CI all but one of
> the orthogonal components is discarded.  Decoherence has cast some light on
> why the components quickly become orthogonal and why they become orthogonal
> only in certain bases.

An important component of Everett's idea was that quantum evolution was
unitary. That gave centrality to the Schrodinger equation. If one wants to
persist with unitary evolution, one cannot avoid the Schrodinger equation.
This has a number of consequences for the theory. One is that the theory is
deterministic -- there are no probabilities, and all outcomes of an
experiment are, in some real sense, equivalent. That leads to the
consequences that I have pointed out. If Saibal wants to avoid those
consequences, then he has to abandon the idea of unitary evolution and the
Schrodinger equation. I think Saibal would be reluctant to go down that
path, so he is left with an inconsistent mess.


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 

Reply via email to