On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 1:58 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 12/7/2013 9:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 1:08 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On 12/7/2013 1:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> Describe an experience which gives sense to multiverses. >> >> >> The Young two slits. >> >> >> Only in some interpretations. >> > > > Everett's idea explains the appearance of collapse without supposing it, > so it is more rightfully called a theory. It is also the only theory under > which QM is compatible with the well-established principles of locality, > causality, and determinism. If you believe in QM, and any of those > principles, Everett is your only option. > > > Determinism is far from "well established". > > It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory. What about causality, and locality? Do you reject those too? Don't forget about special relativity. Even that seems to be in conflict with single universe interpretations since Bell. (Many apologists now say "no useful information" rather than "nothing" can travel faster than light, just to defend the Bohr-Heisenberg idea of collapse) How many sacred cows in physics must be sacrificed to save this poorly defined and ill-conceived Copenhagen Interpretation? > > > The only reason single-universe ideas haven't already been refuted is that > they are ambiguously defined. That is, they make no explicit predictions > as to when or how collapse happens, so whenever interference is > demonstrated with larger and larger systems, defenders of collapse just > adjusting the line. > > > That and the fact that they are unobservable. > As Deutsch says, so are Pterodactyls and quarks, but our evidence for the multiverse is at least as strong as it is for quarks. > All those phenomena cited to show there is a multiverse, like Young's > slits, require that the interference happen in this universe - so those > "other universes" are not so "other". > It is better to think of particles as having multi-valued properties, (including multiple positions), and since we are made of particles, we too can be in superpositions. And later, from this, you can see how systems can evolve independent non-interfering paths, which for all intents and purposes will behave as causally isolated realms. (Which is why they can then be considered "separate universes"). I learned recently that later in his life Schrodinger independently conceived of parallel universes, but didn't publish anything on it. According to Deutsch: About 11 minutes in to this video: http://vimeo.com/5490979 “Schrödinger alsohad the basic idea of parallel universes shortly before Everett, but he didn't publish it. He mentioned it in a lecture in Dublin, in which he predicted that the audience would think he was crazy. Isn't that a strange assertion coming from a Nobel Prize winner—that he feared being considered crazy for claiming that his equation, the one that he won the Nobel Prize for, might be true.” Jason -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
