On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:52 AM smitra <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08-05-2022 06:04, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 11:21 AM smitra <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> The issues with branches etc. are likely just artifacts with making > >> hidden assumptions about branches. At the end of the day there are > >> only > >> a finite number of states an observer can be in. If an observer is > >> modeled as an algorithm, take e.g. Star Trek's Mr. Data then it's > >> clear > >> that there are only a finite number of bitstrings that can > >> correspond to > >> the set of all possible things Mr. Data can be aware of. > > > > Everett is supposed to be QM without observers. So the number of > > things that Mr Data can possibly be aware of is irrelevant. According > > to the SE, all branches are equivalent. All else flows from this -- > > there are no further "hidden assumptions about branches". > > > > Yes, but I'm not a big fan of "sticking to scripture". What matters for > me is that collapse is inconsistent with the SE, therefore we should > consider QM without collapse and see how to best to move forward on that > basis. >
That still treats the SE as indubitally true. No theory in physics is 'indubitably true'. The Everett program is to say that the SE is all that there is -- it explains everything. That is clearly false (no Born rule in the SE), so it might be wise to doubt the universal application of the SE. 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/CAFxXSLRG_Qpwy3294cyU2BT1M9KRgO5mFkj%3DBDg4eo4LbdYuaw%40mail.gmail.com.
