On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/1/2014 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jan 2014, at 01:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/31/2013 1:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote:
But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being
Devil's Advocate, or do you honestly not see the usefulness of
multiverse theories?
Partly playing Devil's Advocate - but doing so because I'm not
convinced that Everett's MWI is the last word and because I don't
like to see the hard problem of predicting/explaining *this* to
be fuzzed over by an easy "everythingism".
Your use of disparaging language to sum up the opposing position
doesn't fill me with optimism that you actually get why this hard
problem may in fact have been solved. There is no "fuzzing over"
involved in the MWI, quite the reverse - you need to "fuzz things
over" if you want to get "this" out of QM as a unique solution.
Collapse of the wave function and so on -- a "fuzzy" hand-waving
exercise.
That's the usual argument of MWI advocates, "It's better than
collapse of the wave function." But is it? It's only better than
Copenhagen. What about Penrose? And what about the subjective
Bayesian interpretation.
I'm not 100% ken on the straw man, either. No one thinks the MWI
is the last word, because it isn't a TOE. But it may be a good
approximation (or it may not, of course).
?? It's an interpretation.
I disagree with this. Everett did propose a new theory. It is SWE,
that is QM without collapse. *All* interpretations of it are multi-
realities. Everett is just QM, and the Everett branches comes from
not avoiding the contagion of superposition, which follows from SWE
linearity. The existence of the relative superposition is a
theorem of QM. Copenhagen is SWE+ collapse, and this is self-
contradictory or quite fuzzy (what is the collapse?).
It is changing your knowledge of the wave-function - replacing some
uncertainty with some knowledge.
Arguably so if the comp arithmetical quantum logic fits with the
observed quantum logic. I do appreciate Pauli and Fuchs. Where I
disagree, is that they oppose this to Everett, but I see no reason
why. In fact Everett+Fuch is made consistent in the many-dreams
interpretation of arithmetic, developed by the numbers inside
arithmetic.
Bruno
Brent
--
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.
