On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 9:25 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 2, 2025 at 7:09:21 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 1, 2025 at 9:08 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 1, 2025 at 2:59:15 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > *> *Quinton: *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.* > > > *I agree. Many Worlds is certainly not more extravagant with assumptions, > and when it comes to theories that's the only sort of extravagance that > matters.* > > *> *Alan:* It is more extravagant, hugely more extravagant.* > > > *Many Worlds produces a much more extravagant outcome but it has far > simpler assumptions than its competition, they need to work very hard to > get rid of those unwanted worlds that they so much dislike.* > > *Many Worlds assumes everything always obeys Schrodinger's Equation, or > its relativistic counterpart the Dirac equation. That's it. * > > *Objective Collapse theory needs to add another very complicated term to > Schrodinger's Equation that contains nondeterministic (a.k.a. random) > elements; and nobody has yet been able to produce a relativistic > counterpart to that modified equation as Dirac had done for the unmodified > Schrodinger Equation way back in 1927.* > > *Pilot Wave Theory keeps Schrodinger's Equation but needs to add another > entirely new very complicated equation called the Pilot Wave Equation that > contains non-local variables. When an electron enters the two slit > experiment the Pilot Wave in effect produces a little arrow pointing to one > of the electrons with the caption under it saying "this is the real > electron, ignore all the other ones". The Pilot Wave does absolutely > nothing except erase unwanted universes, it is for this reason that some > have called Pilot Wave theory the Many Worlds theory in denial. * > > *The Pilot Wave is unique in another way, it can affect matter but matter > cannot affect it, if it's real it would be the first time in the history of > physics where an exception to Newton's credo that for every action there is > a reaction; even after the object it is pointing to is destroyed the pilot > wave continues on, although now it is pointing at nothing and has no > further effect on anything in the universe. Also, nobody has ever been able > to make a relativistic version of the Pilot Wave Equation.* > > *And then there is the Copenhagen Interpretation. Its fundamental > assumption is "everything always obeys Schrodinger's Equation except when > they don't". The trouble is that fans of Copenhagen can't agree, even among > themselves, what the exceptions are. And all of them are very vague. Eugene > Wigner and John von Newman thought consciousness collapses the wave > function. Werner Heisenberg thought there was a sharp line dividing the > microscopic quantum world and the macroscopic classical world, but he > couldn't say exactly or even approximately where that line was. As for what > Niels Bohr said, that depends on what day of the week you asked him, and > even then what he wrote and said was almost incomprehensible. **Bohr was > a great scientist but a lousy philosopher. * > > *And that's why I think Copenhagen is just a euphemism for "shut up and > calculate".And that is why I believe that Many Worlds is, at least so far, > the best bad interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Perhaps tomorrow somebody > will come up with a better idea but if they do I am certain of one thing, > it will be even stranger than Many Worlds. Nobody will ever be able to > erase the weird from Quantum Mechanics. * > > * > IMO, what we have here is a cult, * > > > *And you have repeated that exact same insult about 19 dozen times, but no > matter how many times a lie is repeated that doesn't make it true, although > some seem to think it does. * > > > *> As I wrote, it's my opinion, but an opinion based on facts, one of > which is your conscious refusal to explain, how, using S's equation, you > get to add the postulate that whatever is possible to happen, MUST happen? > You choose not to answer, because you cannot justify this added postulate. > It's a strategy to protect the foolishness of the MWI, aka a cult. AG* > *It's interesting, you didn't even have time to read my post but of course that didn't prevent you from commenting on it. * *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* > > ald > > > -- > 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/63b99bc8-2b7a-40ff-b1b2-fcf57fbc8cb9n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/63b99bc8-2b7a-40ff-b1b2-fcf57fbc8cb9n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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/CAJPayv1kMV9uFkLzCAfpwYNvLTfuSsbYpH4g9ukbCJa9mn_7CQ%40mail.gmail.com.
