On 29 December 2013 07:30, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote: > Bruno, > > Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many > worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave > functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world. > > The MWI assumes a background space-time in which the universal wavefunction evolves deterministically, so in that sense it is a single world. However, we are unaware of the parts of the universal wavefunction with which we aren't entangled (correlated), and decoherence explains why this is so. Hence decoherence is an *alternative* to collapse which *supports* the (so-called) many worlds interpretation.
On 29 December 2013 07:30, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote: > Bruno, > > Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many > worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave > functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world. > > Edgar > > > > On Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:48:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 28 Dec 2013, at 01:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >> >> Jason, >> >> To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just >> interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual >> (measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles. >> >> Decoherence is a well verified mathematical theory with predictable >> results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it actually >> does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence conclusively falsifies the >> very notion of collapse. >> >> >> OK, but decoherence solve the problem in the Many-World picture. >> Decoherence does not justify an unique physical universe. It explains only >> why the universe seems unique and quasi-classical, and seems to pick the >> position observable as important for thought process and measurement. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> Edgar >> >> >> >> On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@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 >> >> ... > > -- > 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.
