Le 23-mai-05, à 22:13, Patrick Leahy a écrit :
There are also those who have thought very carefully about the issue
and have come to a hyper-sophisticated philosophical position which
allows them to fudge. I'm thinking particularly of the
consistent-histories gang, including Murray Gell-Mann.
>-Original Message-
>From: Patrick Leahy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 8:14 PM
>To: Hal Finney
>Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: Decoherence and MWI
>
>
>
>
>On Mon, 23 May 2005, Hal Finney wrote:
>
>> I'
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 09:13:49PM +0100, Patrick Leahy wrote:
>
> For most physicists the Copenhagen interpretation (in some half-understood
> way) works perfectly well at the lab bench.
>
Having been such a physicist at some point in my past, I would
disagree that you average physicist even u
On Mon, 23 May 2005, Hal Finney wrote:
I'd like to take advantage of having a bona fide physicist on the list to
ask a question about decoherence and its implications for the MWI.
If this is true, then how can a physicist not accept the MWI?
Beats me...
Isn't that just a matter of taki
I'd like to take advantage of having a bona fide physicist on the list to
ask a question about decoherence and its implications for the MWI.
Paddy Leahy wrote:
> The crucial point, which is not taught in introductory QM
> classes, is the theory of Quantum decoherence, for which see the wikipedia
5 matches
Mail list logo