On 13-05-2022 22:06, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/13/2022 11:47 AM, smitra wrote:
On 12-05-2022 22:18, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/12/2022 11:17 AM, smitra wrote:
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>
On 09-05-2022 00:34, Bruce Kellett wrote:
That still treats the SE as indubitally true. No theory in
The Everett program is to say that the SE is all that there
explains everything. That is clearly false (no Born rule in
so it might be wise to doubt the universal application of the
There is no good reason to doubt the SE without any
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
theoretical and experimental reasons to believe that it cannot
As John Clark has also mentioned, the opposite is true. There
good arguments for collapse theories. There are no experimental
for real collapse
That depends on how you read the data. We only see one outcome
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
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
someone who wants to take an information theoretic approach and
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.
I agree. And in fact SE fails all the time. It fails to predict a
definite outcome...which is OK if you accept probabilistic theories.
Physics doesn't work in this way. You always need to define a well
defined hypothesis first in order to interpret experimental results
and be able to test various alternative hypotheses/theories. If you
don't do this, you are not doing physics.
Which is why assuming the SE is the whole truth even though it
predicts that everything possible happens, isn't doing physics.
Everything possible also happens in eternal inflation theories due to
the infinite universe that these theories predict. So, that feature of
the theory isn't the relevant physics content. The same is true for the
MWI, where the relevant physics content isn't that I have a copy
somewhere in the multiverse, but the prediction that isolated systems
always evolve according to a unitary time evolution. IF CI is true then
even a totally isolated system must have a probability of undergoing a
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 view this discussion on the web visit