On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 6:52 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

> On 08-05-2022 06:04, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 11:21 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> 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.


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