I do not know if it matters but quantum mechanics is based on the Dirac equation, not Shrodinger's equation
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote: > >> Jason, >> >> Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you >> don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what >> you are saying. >> >> As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct >> experience >> > > Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the > exclusion of all others? If so, please explain how this is self-evident. > > >> whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum >> equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, >> > > I agree with this. But then why isn't it also "outlandish" to presume > past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? > It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function > collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we > are aware of from our particular vantage point. > > To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of > quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose > that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our > vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points > in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion > of all others. This "us-centered" thinking is how I see presentism. It says > that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others. > > >> or in quantum theory = the actual equations. >> > > If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations > (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is > only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to > restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I > have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary. > > >> Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long >> ago >> > > > You need to clarify here. Decoherence is used by some to say when collapse > happens (without needing observers). Hence, collapse is still treated as a > real phenomenon (just one not triggered by observation). Others, use > decoherence in the context of many-worlds to justify the "appearance of > collapse", while maintaining that the wave function never collapses. > > If you are saying collapse doesn't happen or is not real, then that is de > facto "many-worlds". > > > >> but the self-evident experience >> > > As I said a few posts ago, you cannot use your experience to rule out that > more than one present exists, and therefore you cannot use your experience > to rule out that all points in time exist. > > >> of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory. >> > > The exclusive existence of a unique present contradicts special relativity. > > >> >> Please explain why "Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you >> must also reject special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster >> than light, (or as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of >> light)" >> >> I'm not familiar with this result >> > > I am referring to Bell's theorem: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem > explained well here: > http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm > > It is a statistical proof that no system of local hidden variables can > explain the statistics of experimentally observed quantum measurements. > Without local hidden variables, there remain two possible explanations: > 1. measuring one entangled particle instantly and immediately effects the > state of the other particle > 2. when the state of the particle is measured, there is not one definite > outcome: multiple outcomes result from the measurement > > > >> and something is clearly wrong with it. >> > > You are welcome to try to find a flaw in it, but no one has in the many > decades since its publication. > > >> Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all >> time, >> > > It is only QM, without wave function collapse. > > Above you said wave function collapse was ridiculous. So if if it > ridiculous and you get rid of it, you are back to many-worlds. Which is > less ridiculous? > > >> and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was proposed. >> > > Unfortunately it was, but despite that it re-emerged and has been ever > growing in popularity. Feynman, Gell-man, Steve Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, > Erwin Shrodinger, etc. all came to accept it. > > If you reject many-worlds, you must give up: locality, causality, > determinism, special relativity, time-symmetry, time-reversibility, > linearity in QM, and realism. Further, you are unable to explain the > operation of quantum computers. > > >> Do you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every >> quantum event that ever occurred in the history of the universe spawns an >> entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every >> one of those new universes does the same. >> > > Not quite. It implies that the properties of particles can be > multi-valued, and when such a particle interacts with another the result > can be that the other particle too, acquires multi-valued properties as a > result of the interaction. > > A slightly more comprehensible way of looking at this is merely that all > possibilities already exist out there, and when we learn new information it > causes our consciousness to differentiate. See: > http://www.weidai.com/qm-interpretation.txt or Russel Standish's book > http://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html (available as a free e-book). > > >> This immediately exponentially escalates in the first few minutes of the >> universe into uncountable new universes and has been expanding >> exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion years! Just try to calculate the >> number of new universe that now exist. >> > > Should we similarly use the vast number of stars to rule out the idea that > stars are like our sun, only very far away? After all, it means there is an > absolutely HUGE number of solar systems and planetary systems out there, > which is simply TOO BIG for anyone to contemplate. Things would be so much > simpler if we just kept the idea that stars are holes in the floor of > heaven. > > >> It's larger than the largest number that could ever be imagined or even >> written down. There is not enough paper in the universe, or enough computer >> memory in the entire universe to even express a number this large! Doesn't >> anyone ever use common sense and think through these things to see how >> stupid they are? And it violates all sorts of conservations since energy >> eg. is multiplied exponentially beyond counting. >> > > Energy is conserved in each branch, which is all our conservation laws > were designed to handle. > > >> Geeez, it would be impossible to come up with something dumber, >> especially when it is completely clear that decoherence theory falsifies it >> conclusively. >> > > I think you are mistaken on this. > > Jason > > >> >> Edgar >> >> On Friday, December 27, 2013 11:37:22 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> Richard, and Bruno, >>> >>> I agree with Richard here if that is actually what Bruno is doing. >>> Attributing wavefunction collapse to human observation was certainly one of >>> the most moronic 'theories' supposedly intelligent scientists have ever >>> come up with. It's right up there with block time, >>> >>> >>> That's funny, I've always lumped together "presentist" theories of time >>> with wave function collapse, since they both have the same motivation and >>> make the same error: they explain away why we are aware of only one world, >>> or one point in time, when there is no reason to add these additional >>> suppositions, since the theory itself tells us why we are unaware of other >>> times and other branches of the wave function. >>> >>> "Nor can I ever sufficiently admire Copernicus and his followers. They >>> have through sheer force of intellect, done such violence to their own >>> senses, as to prefer what reason told them over what sensible experience >>> plainly showed them." -- Galileo >>> >>> >>> and many worlds nonsense. >>> >>> >>> Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you must also reject >>> special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster than light, (or >>> as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of light). So what >>> are you giving up: single outcomes of measurements or no faster-than-light >>> influences? >>> >>> >>> >>> Surely Bruno can't be basing reality on human experience? After all >>> reality worked just fine for multiple billions of years before humans. >>> >>> >>> The UDA doesn't base reality on experience, it bases reality on >>> relations between numbers. All we see emerges from this: including >>> conscious experience and appearances of physical realities. >>> >>> Jason >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, December 27, 2013 10:34:57 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: >>> >>> Bruno, >>> >>> I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or >>> whatever) of humans >>> strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human >>> consciousness. >>> Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this list. >>> Richard >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: >>> >>> <blockquote style="mar >>> >>> ... >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
