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> 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
so it might be wise to doubt the universal application of the

There is no good reason to doubt the SE without any experimental
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 be
whole story.

As John Clark has also mentioned, the opposite is true. There are no

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 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.

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 non-unitary collapse.



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 

Reply via email to