On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 5:26 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote:
*>>> Only things that are nomologically possible given your particular >>> initial conditions can happen.* >>> >> >> >> Or to say the exact same thing with different words, everything that >> can happen does happen. >> > > > *Hmmm! You have to be careful that you are not just saying the hat > happens, happens!* > Anything that does not violate the laws of physics, particularly quantum physics, can happen. If you fire a electron at 2 slits observing it going through the left slit would be OK with Schrodinger's equation, and so would observing it going through the right slit, and if you don't observe the slits at all it would be OK with Schrodinger's equation to deduce from the resulting interference pattern that the single electron went through both slits. Yes that is absolutely ridiculous but don't blame me, blame God. * >>> And that rules out things like "there is a copy of me that turns left >>> whenever I turn right....".* >>> >> >> >> That would be true only if you assume the wave function collapses, >> and Schrödinger says absolutely nothing about that, it was tacked on by >> people who wanted only one world. >> > > *> Nothing to do with collapse. * > It has everything to do with collapse. Copenhagen people say when the electron hits the photographic plate the wave function collapses and the electron makes up its mind where it is and assumes a discreet position, and that's why it makes a sharp spot and not a big smudge on the plate. Many Worlds people say otherwise, not because they enjoy being contrary but because they don't know how else to explain the bizarre results of the 2 slit exparament. *> Why is it that you many-worlds advocates always accuse someone who > opposes you of assuming some collapse? Rubbish, it assumes no such thing.* > If the wave function collapses then an evolving quantum object, such as yourself, will be in one and only one state tomorrow. If the wave function does NOT collapse then you won't be ( "you" being defined as anything that remembers being Bruce Kellett today). *>>> Additional assumptions are needed if you want to make sense of >>> questions like" "What will a being that remembers being John Clark today >>> see tomorrow."* >>> >> >> >> Like what? >> > > *> That beings like John Clark, with identifiable characteristics, > actually exist at all.* > The only assumption is that the Schrodinger equation means what it says, and it says nothing about it collapsing. You can add extra terms to the equation and make it collapse but Occam would not approve, those additional mathematical complexities do not improve predictions one bit, they do nothing but get rid of those other worlds. > >>>* he *[Everett] *was something of an idiot because he did not see that >>> you could not get probabilities out of a deterministic theory * >>> >> >> >> You can if the theory is deterministic but not realistic as Many >> Worlds is, that is to say if a deterministic interaction between 2 >> particles always produces more than one outcome. >> > > > Actually, I thought one of the attractions of the many worlds theory > was that it was realistic -- in the sense that the wave function really > exists a a physical object, > I don't know where in the world you got that idea. Even probability is pretty abstract but you don't even get that until you take the square of the absolute value of the wave function, which contains imaginary numbers by the way. How much more different from a physical object do you want? > *> How much more realistic do you want?* > It would need one hell of a lot more to be realistic! A theory is realistic if it says a particle is in one and only one definite state both before and after an interaction even if it has not been observed. Many Worlds is about as far from that as you can get. > *Nevertheless, the SWE does not give a probability without some further > assumptions. Why do you think that MWI advocates spend so much time an > effort trying to derive the Born rule? You cannot get probabilities from > the Schroedinger equation without some additional assumptions.* > Irrelevant for this discussion because EVERY quantum interpretation assumes the Born Rule. I don't claim the MWI can solve every quantum problem but it can solve one, the mystery of the observer, and it is at least the equal of the other interpretations in explaining the other mysteries. In other words the Many Worlds Interpretation is the least bad idea anybody has come up with over the last century to explain the weird nature of the quantum world. 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2upU_s_Mc5YAE9c7f1P0bzAzHMPiMzahaDvpXSHQBR9Q%40mail.gmail.com.
