Re: Decoherence and MWI

2005-05-24 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

Re: Decoherence and MWI

2005-05-23 Thread Patrick Leahy
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. SNIP If this is true, then how can a physicist not accept the MWI? Beats me... Isn't that just a matter of

Re: Decoherence and MWI

2005-05-23 Thread Russell Standish
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 uses

RE: Decoherence and MWI

2005-05-23 Thread Brent Meeker
-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'd like to take advantage of having a bona fide physicist