On Wednesday, January 1, 2025 at 7:08:49 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Wednesday, January 1, 2025 at 2:59:15 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: Look at the sky, look at the size of the visible universe and all the entities we can see... I don't see *many worlds* as more extravagant, there is already for sure a bazillion entities. *It is more extravagant, hugely more extravagant. For example, it adds the postulate that everything that can happen, anything that's possible to happen, must happen. So, for example, when considering a horse race, every possible outcome of the race must exist, and for this to be realized, additional worlds must come into existence. It's claimed that this extravagant added postulate comes from Schrodinger's equation, but in fact it's nowhere in sight. Look for yourself if you don't believe me. Or consider what happens when a motorist turns at a T-intersection; not simply two worlds for each possible direction, but a myriad of worlds, perhaps uncountable, corresponding to all possible angles of turning. Moreover, in virtually all versions of the interpretation, the worlds are disjoint and therefore never interact. So the theory is non-testable. IMO, what we have here is a cult, and as such, when confronted with the added postulate and its justification, conjured from thin air as it were, there's never a response to its origin, since it surely does not originate from S's equation. IMO, FWIW, the MWI is pure fantasy, and a harmful one which has corrupted the mentality of the physics community. AG* *Assuming you've read my minor disseration on the MWI, hopefully you now have more respect for my analytical abilities. So, let's now briefly discuss the car-parking paradox. I was aware of the disagreement of simultaneity, but as I stated several times, more is needed to resolve the paradox than just the claim of that disagreement, which you never offered; that is, how EXACTLY does that disagreement translate into what the observers in the frames actually observe. In your last "simplification", IIRC, you had the car NOT fitting in the garage from the pov of the car frame, never mentioning the disagreement about simultaneity. If so, this clearly isn't a solution to the paradox, but simply a restating of it. In any event, I now have the solution, and like the Twin Paradox it requires the observation that although the frames are treated symmetrically / equivalently, such is not the case, and is the root cause of the paradox. I will present my solution in full in the near future, but on the other thread where this issue is its main focus. 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/a387029b-00f2-48a9-96c2-0edb49a5f591n%40googlegroups.com.
