On 29 Dec 2013, at 14:52, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Glad we agree that decoherence falsifies collapse. That's a good
start!
But decoherence also falsifies MW.
Non collapse = many-worlds, to me. If I make a quantum choice, by QM,
I will put myself in a superposition and execute the two alternative
of the experience. If one of the two terms disappears, there is
collapse.
First of all you have to understand what a wavefunction is. It's not
a physical object.
QM is the assumption that particles and fields follows some wave
equation. If you doubt that the physical reality is described by the
wave, you doubt QM. And this has nothing to do with the interpretation
of QM.
It's a description of a physical object in human math.
You confuse the theories and what the theory are intended for.
Basically in QM its formulated as the 'answer' to a question that
can be asked about a physical object.
That's like defining an atom by the set of experimental set up capable
of analysing it.
Then you refer all the times to a reality, and I still don't know what
you assume.
Second, properly understood, there are no 'branches' to a
wavefunction.
Relatively to some observable, there are. What is your semantic of a
quantum decision?
The correct interpretation of a wavefunction is not a description of
a physical object (electron) smeared out in a fixed pre-existing
background space common to all events, it's a description of how
space can dimensionally emerge if that particle decoheres with some
other particle, in other words it's the range of possibilities for
the dimensional relationship that would occur if it interacted with
another particle's wavefunction.
That's not so bad way to see the things, perhaps. It looks like
explaining gravity through quantum entanglements. I am OK with this.
In physics (which I don't assume any theory, as a constraints in the
mind-body problem).
In no way this makes alternate realities in oblivion.
Thus all this occurs not in physical space, but in logical
computational space. It is only when wavefunctions actually
interfere and decohere with each other that actual dimensional
relationships arise, and therefore a point in a dimensional space is
created. This is how dimensional spaces emerge piecewise from
quantum decoherence events.
So you do get many individual spacetime fragments emerging out of
logical computational space by this process, but they are not
separate universes, because they in turn continually merge via
common events that connect and align them. The result of googles of
these processes is the simulacrum of classical spacetime. It is the
origin of physicality from computational space.
That's the way it works.... And this model also unifies GR and QM
and resolves all quantum 'paradox' at the same time, as well as
explaining the source of quantum randomness, so it's an excellent
model. You really need to understand it.
Everett had an insight but since he didn't understand how spacetime
emerges from, is actually created by, quantum events in
computational information space, he followed it off into never never
land...
What are your assumptions, and what is your equation or theorem?
Bruno
Edgar
On Sunday, December 29, 2013 8:31:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 19:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse.
?
That is my point. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Exactly.
> Decoherence falsifies many worlds.
Decoherence is just the contagion of superposed states to the
observer/
environment. It vindicates the many-worlds.
Many-worlds is not an interpretation, but an easy consequence of the
linearity of the wave, and the linearity of the tensor product.
That is so true, than when the founders got this, they introduces a
new axiom for the measurement which basically says that quantum
mechanics is wrong for the observer, to avoid the spreading of the
superposition. But that is ad hoc, and contradict the idea that
physicists obeys to physical laws.
> With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave
> functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world.
The waves don't interact, and the superposition, by linearity, never
disappeared, and spread at light speed.
QM-without-collapse = MW.
Explain me with only QM how a branch of the wave could ever disappear.
Then with comp, arithmetic contains all dreams, and QM becomes the
digital seen from a first person plural points of view. the math
confirms this up to now. This makes "mono-universe" still less
plausible.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
