On 11-05-2022 23:02, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/11/2022 11:51 AM, smitra wrote:
On 11-05-2022 07:25, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 3:11 PM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
On 11-05-2022 06:06, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 1:56 PM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> 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 the results of those experiments lead to a theory where time
evolution is given by a unitary transform. It's as John Clark also
mentioned in one of his replies, analogous to how time reversal
symmetry is not apparent in the macroscopic world. But we know that
the fundamental laws are time reversible. This apparent discrepancy
can be explained, it's not evidence for time reversibility being
violated in nature.
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.
There are no problems with the SE. It's not inconsistent with the Born
rule. The only issue is that it looks a bit unnatural for a
fundamental law of physics to require both a dynamical ruke and the
Born rule. But a real collapse is inconsistent with the SE.
Not in QBism. It's just updating your prior. Seems a perfect fit for
someone who wants to take an information theoretic approach and model
consciousness as an algorithm.
A real collapse is nevertheless inconsistent with the SE, there would
exist physical processes where the SE would fail. If real collapse is
supposed to happen in experiments, then because experiments are
ultimately just many particle interactions then that means that, in
general, the SE cannot be exactly valid. We may then try to observe
small violations of the SE in the lab.
Saibal
Brent
--
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/ef2430ed5cfac7cfe9ddc8cf7cce590e%40zonnet.nl.
