On 11/13/2024 6:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 7:25:55 PM UTC-7 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 arbitrarily closely. AG
FWIW, all equations of the laws of physics are epistemic insofar as
they describe reality, but don't exist as physical entities in
spacetime. If you kick them, they don't kick back (to paraphrase the
Late Vic Stenger). AG
Equations are not in question. It's the things referred to in the
equations and laws, e.g. the wave function, entropy, energy,...
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/63a22265-08fb-4f86-b966-04f7285c53c3%40gmail.com.
