On 11/13/2024 6:25 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 5:47:02 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
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
Another observational fact which is not an axiom, and key to the MW
illusion, is the assumption, allegedly from S's equation, that every
possible outcome must be realized in some world. A hugely simpler
assumption (not an axiom) is the frequentist interpretation of
probability; namely, if an experiment is repeated a large number of
times, the measurement probabilities calculated using the wf, will be
realized arbitarily closely. AG
MWI's claim to fame is that applying the Shroedinger equation to the
instrument and environment in addition to the system of study produces
an orthogonal world for each measured outcome. However this is done
treating the instrument and environment as macroscopic objects ignoring
the details how the instrument interacts with the system, using only a
schematic interaction. That other analyses are possible is shown by the
retro-causal interpretation.
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8af107c8-ef34-4715-a941-613d4d6ee6d4%40gmail.com.
