On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 11:55:34 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 4:11:57 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 12:26 PM, <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> *> the MW advocates (Clark, Smitra, et al) who are comfortable ignoring >>> the obvious absurdity of the need for creating multiple observers with >>> identical memories,* >> >> >> Historically the argument from personal incredulity has proven to be a >> very poor way to figure out how the world works. >> > *On its face it's absurd to think the SoL is invariant for all observers regardless of the relative motion of source and recipient, but it has testable consequences. The MWI has no testable consequences, so it makes no sense to omit this key difference in your historical comparisons with other apparent absurdities in physics. Moreover when you factor into consideration that non locality persists in the many worlds postulated -- assuming you accept Bruce's analysis -- what exactly has been gained by asserting the MWI? Nothing as far as I can tell. And the loss is significant as any false path would be. AG*
> It’s absurd to think that the Earth moves and yet it does. It’s absurd to >> thing that random mutation and natural selection could produce any thing as >> grand as a living animal much less a human being and yet it does. In his >> EPR paper Einstein showed that if existing quantum mechanics was complete >> then absurd things would result and therefore quantum mechanics can’t be >> complete. But years later Bell showed how a experiment to test this could >> be set up and a few years after that Aspect actually did the difficult >> experiment and it turns out that the absurd result that Einstein laughed >> about actually occurs in the real world. >> > > As I see it, the collapse models are hugely LESS ornate than the MWI. Even > one copy of an observer with same history as "original" observer is too > much for me. Not to mention how easily these copies are created, and non > locality prevails in these other universes. I don't buy it. AG > >> >> Perhaps the problem is with the name, in a Reductio ad absurdum proof it >> is not good enough to show that the result is odd or even absurd, you’ve >> got to show it is logically self contradictory. >> >> > this being a clear case of "the cure" (for collapse) being worse than >>> the disease. >> >> In this case the disease is the moon doesn’t exist when I’m not looking >> at it, yes Many Worlds is absurd but not as absurd as that, but I admit >> that is just my opinion and the universe may disagree. Whatever is true one >> thing is certain, the universe is absurd. >> >> 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.
