On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 1:59 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
* > You pretty much ignored everything I wrote* > What the hell?! I went over what you said point by point. *> and were exercised to refute the idea of Heisenberg's cut, which neither > Bohr or I endorsed. * I don't know about you but Bohr insisted that we treat electrons as quantum objects but our measuring instruments as classical objects. He also insisted that human observers were classical objects, but he never specified exactly where the dividing line between the quantum world and the classical world was. And if that dividing line isn't the "Heisenberg cut" then what is? But to be fair to you it's difficult to know exactly what Bohr endorsed because much of his philosophical prose is virtually unreadable; that's one reason the Copenhagen adherence can't agree about fundamentally important things even among themselves. > * > Do you deny that science relies on definite recorded results* > Experimental results are necessary but they are not sufficient, you also need a theory to make sense of it all, otherwise it's just a bunch of numbers. Experiments can never prove that a theory is correct but it can prove that a theory is wrong, and it can prove that some theories are less bad than others. > *> and simply postulating an evolving wave function* > Postulating "an evolving wave function" is one way to put it, and a way to say the same thing with different words is "Schrodinger's equation is correct". You're the one who postulates that Schrodinger's equation must be wrong because all those other worlds simply couldn't exist, that would just be too strange; so despite what the equation says the function must collapse for some reason. But neither you nor anybody else knows how to fix the equation. As for me, I say if something isn't broken then don't fix it. *> does nothing without a theory of how we see definite events? * > I've already gone over that in some detail, if you disagree with what I wrote that's fine but be specific about your objection, I refuse to just keep repeating myself. > * > Many world has no clear explanation of how many worlds there are and > how they get weighted or divided* > I've already gone over that in some detail, if you disagree with what I wrote that's fine but be specific about your objection, I refuse to just keep repeating myself. > > * > Decoherence theory at least gives us an idea of why a measurement in > the general sense produces an apparently classical world.* > Decoherence is fully compatible with Many Worlds, in fact the interpretation simply wouldn't work without it. Simply put, when decoherence occurs the universe splits, and when the universe splits decoherence occurs. John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> w3q eba > -- 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/CAJPayv1RMf-LQmshU13PO2swHtG_V-fWq85GzKiFWx8rzfdOyg%40mail.gmail.com.
