On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 1:51 PM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote: > On 09-05-2022 00:42, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > Such models are certainly inconsistent with the SE. So if your concern > > is that the SE does not contain provision for a collapse, then you > > should doubt other theories that violate the SE. You can't have it > > both ways: you can't reject collapse models because they violate the > > SE and then embrace other models that also violate the SE. Either the > > SE is universally correct, or it is not. > > > >> What matters is that such models can be > >> formulated in a mathematically consistent way, which demonstrates that > >> there is n o contradiction. The physical plausibility of such models > >> is another issue. > > > > This has been discussed. To allow for real number probabilities, the > > number of branches on each split must be infinite. The measure problem > > for infinite numbers of branches has not been solved. It is unlikely > > that any consistent measure over infinite numbers of branches can be > > defined. So this idea is probably a non-starter. At least other models > > have a reasonable chance of success. > > > > As Brent has also pointed out, there amount of information in the > visible universe is finite.
That does not limit the number of branches. A finite universe does not limit the number of points in a line. But one can also consider observers and then > each observer has a some finite memory so there are only a finite number > of branches the observer can distinguish between. > That does not follow. 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/CAFxXSLQ%2B9Ot9VBtuwLdPSLAXbjSLdgvRdGo%3D%3DcDfbDNyia_N-Q%40mail.gmail.com.
