> On 20 Sep 2019, at 14:57, Philip Thrift <cloudver...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 7:39:14 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 6:31:15 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 17 Sep 2019, at 16:04, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com <>> wrote: >> >> >> From a pragmatic perspective, I do not see any Everettian MW (theory, math, >> ideas, formulations, interpretations or whatever they want to call it) in >> computational quantum mechanics: >> >> https://www.simonsfoundation.org/flatiron/center-for-computational-quantum-physics/software >> >> <https://www.simonsfoundation.org/flatiron/center-for-computational-quantum-physics/software> >> >> If MW were important, it would be there. > > > All computational theory (quantum or not) implies the "Many Computations”. > > Bruno > > > > > I guess. But I was looking at the actual libraries of computational QM > programming repositories, and there is a lot of Monte Carlo for example but > nothing explicitly Many Worlds. > > In Sean Carroll's advocacy of Many Worlds: > > https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/02/19/the-wrong-objections-to-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics/ > > <https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/02/19/the-wrong-objections-to-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics/> > > The people who object to MWI because of all those unobservable worlds > <http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/06/04/does-this-ontological-commitment-make-me-look-fat/> > aren’t really objecting to MWI at all; they just don’t like and/or > understand quantum mechanics. Hilbert space is big, regardless of one’s > personal feelings on the matter. > > So in Sean's presentation, if you object to Many Worlds then you don't > like/understand quantum mechanics.
Quantum Mechanics is “many-world” right at the start, (like Mechanism). That is why the founders have add the collapse postulate, but that leads all the time to non-sense, or to proposal that quantum mechanics is wrong. > > [ But one could start instead with a (quantum) measure space: > https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0589 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0589> ] > > When scientists proceed from the mathematics of any theory to an ontology of > nature, they are being more of a religious guru than a scientific one. That is correct. Even a theorem in the theology of the machine, ironically perhaps. But that is valid for a universes, whatever the cardinal a is, from zero to the cardinal of Laver … Now when doing metaphysics seriously, the number of universe and histories become a subject of matter, and we can try different theories, but with mechanism, it always multiplied the observers, which is annoying or pleasing according to our taste, but have no voice in the matter of searching the truth. As we cannot observe any “universe”, the consequence of the metaphysical cardinal of universes must be indirect, of course. With mechanism, we get 0 universes, even 0 token, but infinitely many types, and when universal type meet universal type, they multiply innumerably. Bruno > > @philipthrift > > > > > > -- > 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 > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6ed0ec8e-13fe-493a-8d73-490059c3d45e%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6ed0ec8e-13fe-493a-8d73-490059c3d45e%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/E784FDD8-842C-4214-AA06-C39ED9A700BA%40ulb.ac.be.
