On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:09:48 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 4/26/2018 7:23 AM, agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 4:12:41 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 4/25/2018 7:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 2:17:31 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4/25/2018 6:39 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> >>> *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 one possible answer to the question of where the Heisenberg cut is >>> located (the other is QBism). It led to the theory of decoherence and >>> Zurek's theory of quantum Darwinism which may explain Born's rule. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> * I've always found the Heisenberg Cut to be a nebulous concept, a kind >> of hypothetical demarcation between the quantum and classical worlds. * >> >> >> That's the problem with it; it doesn't have an objective physical >> definition. Bohr regarded it as a choice in analyzing an experiment; you >> put it where ever was convenient. >> >> *What kind of boundary are we talking about, and how could the MWI shed >> any light on it, whatever it is? AG * >> >> >> In MWI there is no Heisenberg cut; instead there's a splitting of worlds >> which has some objective location in terms of decoherence. >> >> Brent >> > > The Heisenberg Cut is too vague and ill-defined to shed light on anything, > and to say the MWI is helpful is adding another layer of confusion. AG > > > Decoherence is a specific well-defined physical process and it describes > the splitting of worlds. There is still some question whether it entails > the Born rule, but at worst the Born rule remains as a separate axiom. > > Brent >
Let's say an electron goes through an SG device. IIUC, its spin state becomes entangled with the spin wf's of the device. How do you infer splitting of worlds from this? AG -- 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.
