On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 1:51 PM smitra <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. 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.
