On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 5:39:37 PM UTC-7 Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 10:46 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 4:00:34 PM UTC-7 Bruce Kellett wrote: The fact that a theory does not claim to explain consciousness does not mean that it cannot be useful, or explain other things within its domain of application. The problem we have is that many-worlds theory does not actually explain anything that does not already have a simpler explanation in terms of some other, less extravagant, theory. For example, many-worlds theory does not explain why we get only one result on any measurement, and it does not explain why we get the observed result rather than any other. This observed fact is easily explained in standard quantum mechanics as the result of a stochastic process -- it is an axiom of quantum mechanics that we get only one result for any experiment, and that result is an eigenvalue of the measurement operator, randomly selected from the possible eigenvalues. Bruce It's hard to imagine, and contrary to observation, that we could get multiple results for a measurement, but an axiom it is not. AG If it is not an axiom, what is it? It is not a theorem; it cannot be derived from anything else in the theory. Bruce It's just an observational fact. Never mentioned as an axiom. AG -- 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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e6df3311-6907-45f0-b326-51aa1c40bc91n%40googlegroups.com.
