On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 2:55:26 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/6/2019 2:37 AM, smitra wrote: > > On 04-10-2019 09:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:03 PM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> > >>> The descendant worlds get the same energy if they have well defined > >>> energy in which case computing the weighted average to get to the > >>> expectation value is unnecessary. In general the expectation value > >>> will > >>> need to be computed by this weighted average. To see that this is > >>> not > >>> crazy, suppose that QM is not the ultimate answer that 't Hooft is > >>> correct. But it then turns out that 't Hooft's deterministic models > >>> lead > >>> to a multiverse via the back door due to Poincare recurrence. And > >>> because with finite information in our brains, we cannot locate > >>> ourselves in a particular time period. Then when we do an > >>> experiment, a > >>> splitting can occur in the sense that we now get more precisely > >>> located > >>> across in the different sectors separated by astronomical large > >>> amounts > >>> of time. So, no problem here with the sum of the energy of > >>> (effective) > >>> branches increasing. > >> > >> Where is all this in the Schrodinger equation? > > > > We should start with listing all possibilities: > > > > 1) Schrodinger equation is exactly correct, in which case we have to > > accept the MWI. > > > > 2) Schrodinger equation is only an approximation. > > > > Under option 2) we can have single world theories where a real > > collapse happens that violates the Schrodinger equation. But it's also > > possible that the violation of the Schrodinger equation leading to a > > collapse doesn't actually get rid of the Many Worlds part of the MWI. > > The way the collapse happens will be different for the copies of an > > observer that will exist in a large enough universe (in a spatial or > > temporal sense). > > Just as the SE predicts there is no collapse of the WF it also predicts > there are no orthogonal worlds. The appearance of collapse comes from > the approximate orthogonality of projections onto the preferred bases. > So suppose we just say that when this approximate orthogonality comes > close enough to exact, we discard the other subspaces orthogonal to what > we've observed. Those other subspaces effectively don't exist. The > level of "close enough to exact" may have a theoretical basis in the > holographic principle and the finite information content available to > the accessible universe. > > Brent > > How does the *Schrödinger equation* predict "no collapse"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation @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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/30ed7f5c-35e8-4162-b818-05a206aa3708%40googlegroups.com.
