On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 9:37:28 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 3:31 PM, <agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > >> Why not just assume the wf collapses by an as-yet unknown process? >> > > You can do that if you want, but Bell proved that if his inequality is > violated, and we now know from experiment that it is, and if that unknown > process is deterministic then the world is non-local or non-realistic or > both. >
Bell showed, and experiments confirm, that our universe is non-local. I think that's the case whether or not the proposed collapse process is deterministic. But if it is deterministic, it messes up physics as Brent earlier indicated. So I suppose it can't be deterministic. And if not deterministic, I think we're back to collapse, and there doesn't seem to be any way to resolve the randomness, the resolution of which I had in mind. What is your definition of non-realistic? TIA. > > > > >> > >> Then, unlike MWI, you have a theory within the realm of testable physics >> and no need to explain where the energy comes from to create those other >> worlds >> > > That is not unique to the MWI. In a accelerating Einsteinian universe > such as ours energy is not conserved at the cosmological level. > There was some unique condition that gave rise to our universe. MWI has it happening wily-nily when someone performs a slit experiment in a lab (and uncountably many times). Hardly a conservative interpretation IMO. > > >> > >> Is collapse so repugnant (how so?) >> > > It's repugnant because the mathematics say nothing about a collapse, the C > openhagen > people just wave there arms and say that it does when a observation is > made, and they can't even say what is observation is. > I can. They can. In a SG experiment, e.g., an observation occurs when the electron's spin state is aligned, or anti-aligned to the magnetic field. > Can only a person make a observation or can a cockroach collapse the wave > function too? > Feynman is conclusive on this point. No person or cockroach needed; just an instrument to record the result. > And what observed the universe at the Big Bang? If it's God what is > observing God? The MWI is actually very conservative, it just assumes the > mathematics means what it says and it doesn't stick on a bunch of other > stuff as Copenhagen does. > Does every event require an observer or instrument to witness it? I think not. > > >> > >> that one has to grasp at a cure that ostensibly is hugely worse than the >> alleged disease >> >> Inquiring minds want to know. >> > > Whatever the truth turns out to be one thing is certain, it will be weird. > > John K Clark > > > > > -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
