On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 3:11 PM smitra <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11-05-2022 06:06, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 1:56 PM smitra <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 09-05-2022 00:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> > >>> 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. > >> > >> There is no good reason to doubt the SE without any experimental hints > >> that it breaks down, or any good theoretical reasons why it is > >> likely to break down in some regime. > > > > Such faith would be touching if it weren't so naive. There are good > > theoretical and experimental reasons to believe that it cannot be the > > whole story. > > > As John Clark has also mentioned, the opposite is true. There are no > good arguments for collapse theories. There are no experimental hints > for real collapse
That depends on how you read the data. We only see one outcome for each experiment, after all! > and if we argue based on theory, then we see that it > leads to many problems. The SE also has many problems., as I have taken pains to point out. 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/CAFxXSLQtFVcW_4fSQjOrHCu-atrTi4SnXH8KbbVXYRVSP%2B6PVg%40mail.gmail.com.
