On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:
> Jason, > > You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for > them. > > There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this > world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever. > > Why do you think there is a connection? > I disagree. Deocherence explains the appearance of collapse without supposing it is a real phenomenon. It was first developed by Bohm, and it was used by Everett in his thesis. If collapse never happens then there are many worlds. You continue to ignore this point despite that I and others have repeatedly pointed it out. > > To answer your last question, I'm pretty confident in the main points of > my theories though still working on some of the details, and of course > their validity is always subject to empirical evidence and consistency both > internally, and with the equations of science (but NOT with a number of > their interpretations) as are all theories, but I certainly haven't seen > any evidence that falsifies, or even casts serious doubts on the main > points of my theories.... I do however agree they need to be developed more > and even more carefully examined for errors and inconsistencies, though > I've already done plenty of that in developing them and testing them..... > > All the points you kindly raise really don't apply as I don't think you've > really grasped my theories, and are instead arguing against your > misunderstandings of my theories. > It is true I do not grasp your theories, but I believe the points I have raised apply in general to all QM interpretations. E.g., no collapse yields many-worlds, no FTL implies to many-worlds, hidden local single-valued variables are impossible, the possibility of quantum computers requires the reality of the superposition, and so on. Jason > > On Saturday, December 28, 2013 4:12:06 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Dec 28, 2013, at 12:30 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" <edga...@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 >> >> >> If decoherence falsified MW why do so many physicists still believe in >> it? What do you see in decoherence that everyone else has missed? >> >> Please answer this question for me: Do you have any doubt about your own >> theories? >> >> Jason >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> <blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;borde >> >> ... > > -- > 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.
